Flashcards
Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony
Cards in this deck (24)
- 1Misleading Information- Leading Questions
- Post-event Discussion - 2Leading QuestionsLoftus 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.) - 3Leading QuestionsLoftus 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) - 4Post-event DiscussionConformity 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 - 5Post-event DiscussionRepeat 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 - 6EvaluationSupporting 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 - 7EvaluationEWT 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 - 8EvaluationIndividual 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 - 9EvaluationReal-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 - 10AnxietyEffects 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 - 11AnxietyEffects 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
- - 12EvaluationAlternative 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 - 13EvaluationNo 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 - 14EvaluationReal-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 - 15EvaluationWeapon 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 - 16Improving the Accuracy of EWTsCognitive Interviews
- 17Mental 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 - 18Reporting 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 - 19Changing 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 - 20Changing Perspective- Imagining how it would have appeared through another person's eyes
- Disrupts the effect of schemas - 21EvaluationQuantity 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 - 22EvaluationResearch
> Meta-analysis of 53 studies found an increase of 34% in correct info given in CI
- Involved volunteer student witnesses tested in a lab - 23EvaluationLimitations 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 - 24EvaluationIndividual 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.
Information
- Description
- [COMPLETE]
- Created by
- Chanelle Titchener · Nov 2018
- Updated
- Nov 11, 2018
- Views
- 62
- Tags
- Rating