EWT

EWT

1. legal term referring to an account given by people of an event they have witnessed

2. Factors affecting EWT

   • misleading information: any information that leads you into giving a particular response, as opposed to a necessarily accurate response
   • leading questions: questions where a desired answer may be hinted at or encouraged as a response e.g. did you see the weapon?-Loftus
     • response bias explanation: doesn't change their actual memory but influences how they decide to answer, e.g. word smashed encourages higher speeds
     • Substitution explanation: Can alter memory if asked same question again- Loftus found Ps who heard smashed were more likely to report they saw glass at the scene that those who heard contacted.
   • Post event discussion: co-witnesses may discuss what they saw- their memory might become contaminated, combining their witness with misinformation from others
     • Gabbert: studid Ps in pairs, watched videos of a crime from diferent angles, then discssed what they saw afterwards. 71% of what they reported wasnt visible from the angle they saw it from
     • Source monitoring theory: memory of the event genuinly distorted, EW can recall info about event but cant recall what was from their direct experience (source confusion)
     • Conformity theory: memories not distorted, they are going along with other co-witnesses, to win social approval or because they trust other witnesses over themselves.
   • AO3 strengths:
     • Bodner: found effects of post-event discussion could be reduced if Ps were warned about effects, when warned their P was a liar their recall was more accurate
     • Practical applications: Loftus' work show how important it is to avoid leading questions and also know it is important to sepearta witnesses at a crime to avoid post event discussion

3. AO3 issues:

   • Artifical material: Loftus showed video of crime, likely if Ps saw crime in real life, they would have different emotions which could have impacted their experience e.g. triggered fight or flight and heightened emotions
   • Demand characteristics: Due to artificial task Ps could likely guess the aim of the experiment and answered accordingly to 'assist' or to 'screw' the findings, so could not reflect real life situations of EWT.
   • Lack of consequence compared to real life: Gabbert set up and filmed with actors rather than witnessing in real life, doesnt reflect real life anxiety, no consequence to their answer so might not have actually tried hard to recall what they saw but in real life it could putn someone in prison.
   • Methodological issues: both conducted field studies and lacked control, showing car crash could trigger P if they had past experience with one and could cause anxiety which would distract them from task affecting the results.
   • Both focused on younger Ps which likely had a short time of driving experience and might not be able to estimate speed realistically.