Post-event Discussion

Post-event Discussion

1. AO1: Co-witnesses are likely to discuss the event with eye-witnesses and this could be a source of further distortion. 58% of eye-witnesses had reported discussing the incident post-event with other witnesses (Skagerburg and Wright, 2008)

2. Errors in eyewitness accounts can occur when a witness comes into contact with post-event ‘misinformation’.

   • A common way to encounter misinformation is through face-to-face interaction, in particular via conversation with other individuals who also witnessed the crime.
     • The current research compares this kind of misinformation with the non-social post event narrative method typically employed in laboratory studies.

3. Gabbert et al. (2003) investigated the effect of post-event discussion on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Her sample consisted of 60 students from the University of Aberdeen and 60 older adults recruited from a local community.

   • Procedure: Participants watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet. The participants were either tested individually (control group) or in pairs (co-witness group).
     • The participants in the co-witness group were told that they had watched the same video, however they had in fact seen different perspectives of the same crime and only one person had actually witnessed the girl stealing.
       • Participants in the co-witness group discussed the crime together. All of the participants then completed a questionnaire, testing their memory of the event.
         • Results: Gabbert et al. found that 71% of the witnesses in the co-witness group recalled information they had not actually seen and 60% said that the girl was guilty, despite the fact they had not seen her commit a crime.
           • These results highlight the issue of post-even discussion and the powerful effect this can have on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony