AS Psychology: Eye Witness Testimony Revision

AS Psychology: Eye Witness Testimony Revision

1. Loftus & Palmer (1974): Research of Automobile Destruction

   • Experiment One: LEADING QUESTIONS
     • Testing the reliability of the Eye Witness Testimony; can it be modified by leading questions?
     • IV: Verbs used in the question* (Smashed, Collided, Bumped, Hit, Contacted) // DV: Sample Group (7 Students)
       • The more powerful the verb, the higher the 'mph' given. 'Smashed' had an average of 40.8mph, whilst 'Hit' averaged at 34.0mph
   • Experiment Two: MISLEADING INFORMATION
     • Can Misleading Information distort memory of events?
       • IV: Original Question asked* // DV: Interval between Q and A (1 week)
         • Verb originally used continued to distort memory. 32% of 'Smashed' Group reported seeing broken glass 14% of 'Hit' Group reported seeing broken glass = There was no broken glass.
   • EVALUATION
     • PROS
       • Realistic-looking footage used
       • Has external validity
         • Police officers know to ask less biased questions to Eye Witnesses
     • CONS
       • No extraneous variables (Lab Experiment)
       • American Students used: Can't generalise
       • Contrasting arguments on why misleading Q's affected participants:
         • Yuille & Cutshall (1986): Real life; shop owner shot and killed thief; 21 witnesses; 1 witness questioned by researchers; witness could accurately recall event 4 months after shooting

2. Effect of AGE on EWT

   • Cohen & Faulkner (1989)
     • Showed middle-aged and elderly PP's footage of a kidnapping: Group 1 - Received narrative account with accurate info // Group 2 - Received narrative account with misleading info // Elderly people were more susceptible to misleading info
     • Evaluation
       • Lab Conditions: Participants aware of lack of consequence for actions or mistakes; lacks ecological validity
       • Potential Investigator Effects: Tone/Body language of narrator could've influenced results
   • Poole & Lindsay (2001)
     • 1. Children aged 3 - 8 shown science demonstration; parents then read them a book containing elements of the demonstration; children incorporated new information into original memory; 2. Children were asked where the info they received came from (source monitoring); Older children could tell apart whilst younger children were much poorer at it.
     • Evaluation
       • Informed Consent: Received from parents + parental involvement = children around familiar people and less susceptible to investigator effects
       • Application to real life: Ensure witness doesn't hear new information

3. Effect of ANXIETY on EWT

   • Yerkes-Dodson Law:
   • Loftus: Weapon Effect (1979) - Does weapon-induced anxiety take attention away from a person's appearance?
     • Participants sat outside lab, listening to conversation of people inside // Group 1: Peaceful conversation; man emerges w/greasy hands & pen // Group 2: Hostile conversation; sounds of damage to furniture; man emerges with bloodstained knife // 50 photos given to each group to recall face of man. G1 better than G2 (focus was on knife)
     • PRO: Genuine responses; ecological
     • CON: Lack of Extraneous Variables; no distractions from conversation; no ecological
   • Christianson & Hubinette (1993): Real events involving high levels of stress will create a more accurate, detailed and long lasting memory.
     • Survey; 110 participants - all witnesses of real bank robberies; 2 groups: 1)Bystanders & 2)Victims // 2) had better recollection than 1); 2) exposed to higher levels of stress.
       • PRO: Real Life; real danger and real reactions; ecological
       • CON: Unsure of distance between event & survey: 110 to all witness bank robberies = unlikely; memory potentially strengthened in various ways (i.e - police interviews)

Images and files in the map