Misleading Information & Ewt A.g.

Front 1

What is an Eyewitness Testimony?

Back 1

Evidence provided in court by a person who was witnessed a crime/incident w/ a view to identifying the perpetrator of the crime.

- Can be affected by many things - leading q's & misleading info.

Front 2

What is a Leading Question?

Back 2

Suggests to the witness what

answer is desired or leads them to a desired answer.

Front 3

What is post-event discussion?

Back 3

Any info discussed after the event has happened which could influence a person's memory of the event

Front 4

Aim and Procedure of Loftus & Palmer's Experiment (Leading Q's)

Back 4

Aim

- To investigate the effect of leading questions in distorting the accuracy of EWT.

Procedure

- Lab experiment & independent groups design

- 45 American students shown 7 different films of car accidents.

- Pp's given questionnaire after which asked them to describe the accident.

- One critical question: "How fast were the cars going when they __ each other?"

- Pp's divided into 5 groups.

- 5 different verbs: hit, smashed, collided, bumped & contacted.

- IV = Wording of the Q

- DV = Speed Reported by the pp's.

Front 5

Findings & Conclusion of Loftus & Palmer's Experiment (Leading Q's)

Back 5

Findings

- Estimated speed affected by verb used.

- Highest speed (40.8 mph) = smashed

- Lowest speed (31.8mph) = contacted

Conclusion

- Leading Q's affected the pp's memory for the event

- Language can have a distorting effect on EWT = can lead to inaccurate accounts of witnessed events.

- Possible that original memory can be reconstructed so can't conclude w/ confidence = Important implications for questions used in police interviews of EW

Front 6

A & P of Gabbert et al's Experiment (Post-event discussion)

Back 6

Aim

- To investigate the effects of post-event info in distorting the accuracy of EWT.

Procedure

- Pp's split into pairs.

- Each pp watched a vid of same crime but from different viewpoints.

- Each pp could see elements in the event that others couldn't.

- Both pp's then discussed what they saw before individually completing a test of recall.

- Control group = no discussion before the recall task.

Front 7

F & C of Gabbert et al's Experiment (Post-event discussion)

Back 7

Findings

- 71% mistakenly recalled aspects of event they didn't see but picked up in post-event discussion.

- 0% in control group.

Conclusion

- Witnesses often go along w/ each other, to win social approval or b/c they believe other witnesses are right & they are wrong.

Front 8

Strength of Research into Misleading Info: Reliability

Back 8

- Several studies into EWT & regularly found similar results.

- Used a range of controlled experiments, illustrated different examples of EWT.

- B/c of control over extraneous variables = easy replicate.

= researchers using identical procedures should produce similar results.

- Misleading info negatively affects EWT.

Hint 8

- Several studies

- Control

- Why is it easy to replicate?

- How does misleading info affect EWT.

Front 9

Limitation of Research into Misleading Info: Lacks Validity

Back 9

- Loftus's research = artificial - used a vid not same as real incidents.

- Difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in a lab, for various practical & ethical reasons.

- Real incidents happen unexpectedly & in an atmosphere of high tension.

- May be recalled different to lab settings.

- Foster et al found if pp's thought they were watching real life robbery important to real trial = identification of robber was more accurate.

- Controlled setting = may lack validity, in turn may undermine the finding.

Hint 9

- How is Loftus' research artificial?

- Why is difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in a lab?

- Atmosphere of real incidents...

- What did Foster et al find (pp's thought they were watching a real incident)?

- How may a controlled setting affect validity?

Front 10

Limitation of Research into Misleading Info: Contradictory Real Life Research

Back 10

- Yuille & Cutshall studied real life shooting outside in a gun shop in Canada.

- Examined witnesses recall of a real-life crime.

- Suggested important info can't be distorted.

- Weapons Effect - pp tend to focus on weapon rather than other details.

- May explain why accuracy in recall of an event is poor b/c witness only focuses on one detail, weapon.

Hint 10

- Yuille & Cutshall - gunshop

- What did they examine?

- What did they suggest?

- What is the Weapons Effect?

- What may this explain?

Front 11

Limitation of Research into Misleading Info: Ethical Issues

Back 11

- Psychologists can't induce unnecessary psychological harm in research & must gain informed consent from pp's to take part.

- One important variable is anxiety, unless this occurs naturally it is likely that methods used may cause mild harm, especially to children.

= ethically, much research may be questionable.

Hint 11

- Psychological harm

- Pp's must give...

- What may induced anxiety cause?

- Questionable.

Front 12

What can be the effect of being in an emotion state due to anxiety.

Back 12

May negatively affect how we store info therefore affecting how accurately we recall info.

Front 13

At what anxiety level in EWT most accurate?

Back 13

Medium Anxiety

High Anxiety/Low anxiety = poor recall.

Front 14

A & P of Loftus et al's Experiment (effect of anxiety on accuracy recall.)

Back 14

Aim

- To whether high levels of anxiety will affect accuracy of recall.

Procedure

- 2 conditions: w/ weapon & w/out

- Pp's asked to sit outside lab where they thought they heard a genuine discussion between 2 people.

- Low anxiety (no weapon) - peaceful about office equipment. At end, man emerged holding pen w/ grease on hands.

- High anxiety (weapon) - heated convo & heard breaking glass. Man emerged holding a knife w/ blood on hands.

- Pp's asked to identify man from 50 photos.

Front 15

F & C of Loftus et al's Experiment (effect of anxiety on accuracy of recall)

Back 15

Findings

- Low anxiety condition = 49% able to accurately identify man holding pen.

- High anxiety = 33% accuracy

Conclusion

- Weapon may have distracted attention from the person holding it.

- Might explain why EW sometimes have poor recall for certain details of violent crimes involving weapons (heightened anxiety)

Front 16

P, F & C of Loftus & Burns' Experiment (violent & non-violent condition)

Back 16

Procedure

- Controlled study

- Pp's watched a film of a simulated robbery.

- Some watched non-violent version & others violent version.

Findings

- When questioned after, those in non-violent condition = recalled significantly more details for crime than those in violent.

Conclusion

- Shock of event had heightened arousal & therefore disrupted memory storage of details before & after violent scene.

Front 17

Strength of Research into Anxiety: Reliable

Back 17

- Several studies into EWT & regularly found similar results.

- Used a range of controlled experiments, illustrated different examples of EWT.

- B/c of control over extraneous variables = easy replicate.

= researchers using identical procedures should produce similar results.

- High anxiety negatively affects EWT.

Hint 17

- Several studies into EWT & regularly found similar results.

- Used a range of controlled experiments, illustrated different examples of EWT.

- B/c of control over extraneous variables = easy replicate.

= researchers using identical procedures should produce similar results.

- Anxiety info negatively affects EWT.

Front 18

Limitation of Research into Anxiety: Lacks Validity

Back 18

- Loftus's research = artificial - used a vid not same as real incidents.

- Difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in a lab, for various practical & ethical reasons.

- Real incidents happen unexpectedly & in an atmosphere of high tension.

- May be recalled different to lab settings.

- Foster et al found if pp's thought they were watching real life robbery important to real life = identification of robber was more accurate.

- Controlled setting = may lack validity, in turn may undermine the finding.

Hint 18

- How is Loftus' research artificial?

- Why is difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in a lab?

- Atmosphere of real incidents...- What did Foster et al find (pp's thought they were watching a real incident)?

- How may a controlled setting affect validity?

Front 19

Limitation of Research into Anxiety: Ethical Issue

Back 19

- Psychologists can't induce unnecessary psychological harm in research & must gain informed consent from pp's to take part.

- One important variable is anxiety, unless this occurs naturally it is likely that methods used may cause mild harm, especially to children.

= ethically, much research may be questionable.

Hint 19

- Psychological harm

- Pp's must give...

- What may induced anxiety cause?

- Questionable.

Front 20

Limitation of Research into Anxiety: Lacks Real Life Application

Back 20

- Loftus's research has been criticised as it doesn't reflect real life, so lacks ecological validity.

- Christianson & Hubinette - natural experiment.

- Found emotional arousal may actually enhance the accuracy of memory.

- Questioned 110 real witnesses to 22 real bank robberies.

- Found witness who had been threatened were much more accurate in their recall than onlookers (less emotionally aroused).

- Concluded that pp are good @ remembering highly stressful in real life rather than artificial surroundings.

Hint 20

- Why has Loftus' research been criticised?

- Christianson & Hubinette

- What did they find out about the effect of emotional arousal on accuracy f recall.

- One sentence on procedure.

- What did they find specific to the study (witnesses who had been threatened...).

- What does this show?