Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony

Question	Answer
Misleading Information	- Leading Questions - Post-event Discussion
Leading Questions	Loftus and Palmer (1974) - 45 students were shown different traffic accidents and asked to fill out a questionnaire -"How fast were the cars going?" bumped, collided, contacted Smashed(40.8), collided (39.3), bumped (38.1) Hit(34.0) and contacted(31.)
Leading Questions	Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Leading questions may bias the response - Smashed, hit and control - "Did you see any broken glass?" No - smashed (34) / Hit (43) / Control (44) Yes - smashed (16) / Hit (7) / Control (6)
Post-event Discussion	Conformity effect - Co-witnesses may reach a conclusion about what happened during the event - Gabbart et al (2003) participants were in pairs and watched 2 different clips of the same event and discussed the event first. 71% went on to mistakenly recall items acquired during the discussion
Post-event Discussion	Repeat Interviewing - Each time a participant is interviewed there is the chance that the comments from the interviewer will become incorporated into the recollection of events - May use leading questions to alter the individual's memory (LaRooy et al, 2005 on children describing a crime
Evaluation	Supporting Evidence > Braun et al (2002), college students were asked to evaluate ads from Disneyland > Misleading info about Bugs Bunny and Ariel (Ariel wouldn't have been around at the time of their childhood and Bugs isn't Disney - Reported to have shaken their hands
Evaluation	EWT in Real Life > Yuille and Cutshall (1986) - Found greater accuracy in real-life events > Witnesses to an armed robbery and gave very accurate reports 4 months later, but had initially been given misleading info, suggesting that misleading info has less of an effect in real-life events
Evaluation	Individual Differences > Age differences could be a consequence of source monitoring > The elderly typically find it more difficult to recall the source of information and the memory become impaired > More susceptible to misleading information
Evaluation	Real-world Applications > The justice system relies heavily on EWT > DNA exoneration cases confirmed the warnings of using eyewitness investigation > Conviction of innocent people through mistaken identification of the eyewitness
Anxiety	Effects of Anxiety - Johnson and Scott (1976) - Pen covered in grease vs knife covered in blood. Participants were asked to identify the man responsible - Weapon focus effect - 49% in pen condition and 33% in knife condition
Anxiety	Effects of Anxiety - Christianson et al (1993) - 58 real witnesses to bank robberies in Sweden - Victims or bystanders (high and low anxiety) - Interviews were held 4-15 months after -
Evaluation	Alternative Model > Fazey and Hardy (1988) suggested a more complex model than the Y-D model > Catastrophe theory - rather than a gradual decline in performance in increases arousal = a more catastrophic decline due to increased worry
Evaluation	No simple conclusion > No simple rule about the effect of anxiety on the accuracy of EWT > Christianson and other studies involved genuine crimes but not all were violent > Victims of violent crimes were more accurate in their recall
Evaluation	Real-life vs Lab studies > Christianson's study was a study in a real-life context > Lab studies do not create the same levels of anxiety > Deffenbacher et al (2004) - lad studies demonstrate that anxiety led to reduced accuracy
Evaluation	Weapon focus caused by surprise > Pickel (1998) - reduced accuracy could be caused by the surprise rather than anxiety > Scissors (+treat, -surprise) Handgun (+threat +surprise) wallet (-threat,-surprise) whole chicken (-threat,- surprise) > Accuracy was reduced in high surprise rather than high threat
Improving the Accuracy of EWTs	Cognitive Interviews
Mental Reinstatement	- Mentally recreate the scene - "think back to that day...what was the weather like...when you're ready, tell me everything you can remember" - Make memories accessible
Reporting Everything	- Report every single detail remembered regardless of how irrelevant it may seem - "I am interested in everything that you remember...please just tell me everything" - Memories are interconnected so that the recollection of one item may cue more
Changing the Order	- The interviewer may ask to reverse the sequence of events - Recollection is influenced by schemas, so recalling the sequence in reverse eliminates the influence of schemas
Changing Perspective	- Imagining how it would have appeared through another person's eyes - Disrupts the effect of schemas
Evaluation	Quantity vs Quality > Designed to enhance the quantity without compromising the quality of memories > Köhnken et al (1999) found an 81% increase of correct info and 61% of incorrect info when CI was compared to standard interviews
Evaluation	Research > Meta-analysis of 53 studies found an increase of 34% in correct info given in CI - Involved volunteer student witnesses tested in a lab
Evaluation	Limitations of using CI in practice > CI requires lots of time and many police officers would prefer to limit information to necessary items > Requires special training
Evaluation	Individual differences > Negative stereotypes on older adult's memory can make witnesses more cautious > CI may overcome such problems as it stresses the importance of reporting every detail.

Next up

Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Chanelle Titchener over 5 years ago