5265459
Description
Mind Map by Emma-Leigh Forman, updated more than 1 year ago
|
|
Created by Emma-Leigh Forman
almost 8 years ago
|
|
Memory: Accuracy of EWT-
Misleading Information
- Innocence project suggested that
72% of convictions overturned by
DNA testing involved inaccurate
EWT's
- Two example of
Misleading information
are 'Leading Questions'
'Post-event discussion'.
- LEADING QUESTIONS!
- LOFTUS +
PALMER (1974)
- PROCEDURE: 45 students were shown 7 different films
of road accidents. Each were asked the critical
question: 'about how fast were the cars going when
they hit each other?' Split into 5 groups- group 1 was
asked the above question. Other 4 were asked the
question but the word hit was replaced with
'smashed, collided bumped, hit and contacted'.
- Verbs used are leading as they imply a certain speed.
- Verbs used are leading as they imply a certain speed.
- FINDINGS: mean speed estimates
were as follows.. Smashed =
40.8mph, Collided = 39.3mph,
Bumped= 38.1mph, Hit = 34mph,
Contacted = 31.8mph
- LOFTUS +
PALMER (1974)
- LOFTUS + PALMER
(EXPERIMENT NO.2)
- PROCEDURE: A new set of participants are divided into 3 groups
and were shown a film of an accident (1min long). They were then
questioned about the speed as before. Participants were asked to
return a week later to answer some questions including critical
question 'Did you see any broken glass?' (no broken glass was in
the film).
- FINDINGS... SMASHED = 16 yes, HIT = 7 yes,
CONTROL GROUP= 6 yes. Verb influenced
memory participant had of event.
- PROCEDURE: A new set of participants are divided into 3 groups
and were shown a film of an accident (1min long). They were then
questioned about the speed as before. Participants were asked to
return a week later to answer some questions including critical
question 'Did you see any broken glass?' (no broken glass was in
the film).
- POST EVENT DISCUSSION!
- CONFORMITY EFFECT: Gabbert et al (2003)
suggested that Co-witnesses create a consensus
of what happened between one another.
- PROCEDURE: Participants were put into pairs and each was
shown a different video and so viewed completely unique items.
Before recalling back what they had seen to researcher, pairs
were encouraged to discuss the videos.
- FINDINGS: 71% of
participants recalled
incorrect information
- PROCEDURE: Participants were put into pairs and each was
shown a different video and so viewed completely unique items.
Before recalling back what they had seen to researcher, pairs
were encouraged to discuss the videos.
- REPEAT INTERVIEWING: La Rooy et al (2005)- each
time a person is interviewed their account cn be
altered by comments made by the interviewer.
Eg. they may use leading questions. He found
that the effect was greater on young people.
- CONFORMITY EFFECT: Gabbert et al (2003)
suggested that Co-witnesses create a consensus
of what happened between one another.
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.