Eye-Witness Testimony

Eye-Witness Testimony

1. Factors affecting the accuracy of E.W.T.

   • Age
     • Kent & Yuielle 87
       • Aim: looked at whether young children were more or less accurate than older children.
       • Procedure: they took 2 groups of children, one of 9 and the other of 14 and gave them the opportunity to interact with a stranger. They were later asked to identify the stranger from photographs. The strangers picture was no in the display.
       • Results: were that the 9 year-olds were far more likely to choose a false positive photograph than the 14 year-olds.
       • Conclusion: young children are more likely to make a false positive identification probably to please the experimenter (Demand Characteristics).
     • Parker & Carranza 89
       • Aim: to investigate whether children are better or worse at E.W.T. than young adults.
       • Procedure: was to show primary children and college students a slide sequence of a mock crime. After asked them to identify the perpetrator from a series of photographs.
       • Results: the young children were more likely to choose a photo and choose a wrong photo than the young adults.
       • Conclusion: young children are more likely to make a false identification because they are more anxious to please the experimenters.
   • Anxiety
     • Loftus
       • Aim: to see if anxiety affected accuracy of E.W.T.
       • Procedure: participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire whilst in the waiting room. They were divided into two groups. Both groups heard an arguement in the room and saw a confederate come out 1. with a pen and grease stains the other with a paper knife and blood. Participants were then asked to identify the confederate.
       • Findings: they found that the participants were less accurate in the second situation (bloody knife).
       • Conclusion: they concluded that accuracy was worse due to the high anxiety. Loftus called this weapon focus.
   • Misleading Information
     • Loftus & Palmer 1974
       • Aim: looked at whether misleading information distorted the accuracy of an eyewitness's immediate recall.
       • Method: Forty-five students were shown seven films of different traffic accidents. After each film the participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about it. There was one CRITICAL question. This question was 'About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?' One group of participants were given this question. The other five groups were given the verbs SMASHED, COLLIDED, BUMPED or CONTACTED in place of the word HIT.
       • Findings: The mean speed estimate was calculated for each group, as shown in the table. The group given the word 'smashed' estimated a higher speed than the other groups (about 41mph). The group given the word 'contacted' estimated the lowest speed (about 30mph).