AS Psychology: Eye Witness Testimony Revision

Loftus & Palmer (1974): Research of Automobile Destruction
1. Experiment One: LEADING QUESTIONS
  1. Testing the reliability of the Eye Witness Testimony; can it be modified by leading questions?
  2. IV: Verbs used in the question* (Smashed, Collided, Bumped, Hit, Contacted) // DV: Sample Group (7 Students)
    1. The more powerful the verb, the higher the 'mph' given. 'Smashed' had an average of 40.8mph, whilst 'Hit' averaged at 34.0mph
2. Experiment Two: MISLEADING INFORMATION
  1. Can Misleading Information distort memory of events?
    1. IV: Original Question asked* // DV: Interval between Q and A (1 week)
      1. 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.
3. EVALUATION
  1. PROS
    1. Realistic-looking footage used
    2. Has external validity
      1. Police officers know to ask less biased questions to Eye Witnesses
  2. CONS
    1. No extraneous variables (Lab Experiment)
    2. American Students used: Can't generalise
    3. Contrasting arguments on why misleading Q's affected participants:
      1. 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
Effect of AGE on EWT
1. Cohen & Faulkner (1989)
  1. 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
  2. Evaluation
    1. Lab Conditions: Participants aware of lack of consequence for actions or mistakes; lacks ecological validity
    2. Potential Investigator Effects: Tone/Body language of narrator could've influenced results
2. Poole & Lindsay (2001)
  1. 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.
  2. Evaluation
    1. Informed Consent: Received from parents + parental involvement = children around familiar people and less susceptible to investigator effects
    2. Application to real life: Ensure witness doesn't hear new information
Effect of ANXIETY on EWT
1. Yerkes-Dodson Law:
2. Loftus: Weapon Effect (1979) - Does weapon-induced anxiety take attention away from a person's appearance?
  1. 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)
  2. PRO: Genuine responses; ecological
  3. CON: Lack of Extraneous Variables; no distractions from conversation; no ecological
3. Christianson & Hubinette (1993): Real events involving high levels of stress will create a more accurate, detailed and long lasting memory.
  1. 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.
    1. PRO: Real Life; real danger and real reactions; ecological
    2. CON: Unsure of distance between event & survey: 110 to all witness bank robberies = unlikely; memory potentially strengthened in various ways (i.e - police interviews)

Media attachments

4aa1d263-6c40-41d0-baea-5af8932b309a (image/jpg)

Next up

AS Psychology: Eye Witness Testimony Revision

Description

Resource summary

Media attachments

Similar

	Created by Asterisked about 9 years ago