EWT

09amy.gill
Mind Map by 09amy.gill, updated more than 1 year ago
09amy.gill
Created by 09amy.gill over 5 years ago
7
0

Description

lol
Tags

Resource summary

EWT
1 Misleading Information: outline
1.1 Loftus & Palmer
1.1.1 45 students shown films of different traffic accidents. Then asked to fill out a questionnaire with various questions about the accidents, with one crucial question: “About how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?” Six groups were given different verbs, varying in degree.
1.1.1.1 Experiment 2:
1.1.1.1.1 Divided into 3 groups (smashed, hit and a control group that did not have any questions regarding speed) and shown a car accident lasting one minute. The question, “did you see any broken glass?” was asked, no broken glass having been in the original film. Participants in the “smashed” group were more likely to think they saw broken glass, suggesting that misleading post-event information does change the way information is stored
1.1.2 Misleading information: evaluation
1.1.2.1 Loftus: stop/yield
1.1.2.1.1 One group shown car stopping at junction with a “STOP” sign, while the other group were shown a “YIELD” (give way) sign. Half of each group were given the question: “did another car pass the red Datsun while it was at the YIELD/STOP sign?” Participants were then shown each picture again, varying as to which they were shown. 75% if participants who had consistent questions picked at the correct slide, compared to 41% who had a misleading question picked the correct slide
1.1.2.2 Yuille & Cutshall
1.1.2.2.1 Interviewed 13 witnesses of armed robberies 4 months after the incident and included 2 misleading questions. Despite the questions and delay, witnesses provided accurate recall, matching their initial detailed reports
1.1.2.3 Lab Study Criticism
1.1.2.3.1 Do not represent real life because (1) people do not take them as seriously and (2) people are not emotionally aroused as they would be in a real experiment
1.1.2.3.1.1 Foster, et al: found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery and thought their responses would influence trial, their identification of a robber was more accurate
2 Weapon-focus effect
2.1 Arousal may focus the witness on more central details of the attack (i.e. weapon), rather than the minor things (i.e. what else was going on).
2.1.1 Johnson & Scott:
2.1.1.1 Condition 1: participants overheard a discussion, a men then emerging with pen covered in grease.
2.1.1.1.1 Condition 2: participants overheard a more heated discussion, a man then emerging with a penknife covered in blood.
2.1.1.1.1.1 When asked to identify the man from 50 photographs, participants in condition 1 were 49% accurate, compared to 33% in condition 2.
2.2 Yerkes-Dodson Law
2.3 Steblay: meta-analysis of studies concerned with the weapon-focus effect proved Loftus' findings
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

Memory Key words
Sammy :P
Biological Psychology - Stress
Gurdev Manchanda
History of Psychology
mia.rigby
Psychology A1
Ellie Hughes
Psychology subject map
Jake Pickup
The Biological Approach to Psychology
Gabby Wood
The working memory model
Lada Zhdanova
Attachment - Psychology - Flash Cards
Megan Price
definitions of abnormality
Daisy U
Concepts of Attachment
scarlettrosiex
biological approach
Daisy U