1.1.1 Yarmey (1993) Varying age groups, participants stopped and asked to recall physical
characteristics of young woman they had spoken to for 15s just 2mins earlier.
1.1.2 Concluded age of eye-witness does not affect accuracy of
18.104.22.168 More reliable as repeated. More
representative – larger sample sign.
Higher ecological validity.
22.214.171.124 Cannot genralise findings to children
1.2 USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS
1.2.1 Loftus & Palmer (1974).
126.96.36.199 Concluded the 9mph difference between verbs
smashed & contacted suggests leading questions
does affect accuracy of EWT recall.
188.8.131.52 AIM: Test if use of
184.108.40.206 Process: 5 groups, shown video of car accident.
Asked same question with key word changed. What
speed were the cars going when they ??? each other.
Words used - hit, smashed into, bumped into, made
contact with, collided with.
220.127.116.11 Low ecological validity – stress levels not
the same. Cannot generalise – it’s all
students. Cannot generalise – small
1.2.2 Loftus & Palmer (1974).
18.104.22.168 Concluded that memory is altered by leading
22.214.171.124 Process: Students put into 3 groups. Shown
video of car accident. Ask back a week later
and asked the LEADING QUESTION: "Did you
see any broken glass?" (There was no broken
1.3.1 LOFTUS & BURNS - Participants asked to sit
outside laboratory where they thought they were
over-hearing a genuine argument. One condition
heard a friendly conversation & a man walking out
with a greasy pen. Second condition heard a heated
argument & a man walk out with a bloody knife.
Participants then given 50 photos and asked to
126.96.36.199 Over-heard friendly conversation – better
recall (49%). Over-heard argument – 33%.
High stress = less accurate recall.
1.3.2 CHRISTIANSON & HUBINETTE (1993) -
Survey of 110 people who had witnessed
a genuine bank robbry.
188.8.131.52 Found - Highest stress levels recalled
more accurate. Concluded - in real
incidents involving high stress levels,
memory proved to be more accurate
184.108.40.206.1 High ecological validity.
1.3.3 YUILLE & CUTSHALL (1986) - 13 witnesses to a
real-life robbery. Thief stole items and money
then got shot 6 times.
220.127.116.11 Found – Cases of real-life recall where memory for an anxious/stressful
event is accurate. And misleading questions may not have the same
effect as found in lab studies (e.g. Loftus and palmer).
18.104.22.168.1 Witnesses who experienced the
highest levels of stress were
actually closer to the event –
this may have helped with their
accuracy of their memory
2.1 Bartlett – “Reconstructive Memory is
putting the pieces of info from a memory
together – but often in the wrong order,
with bits added or missing.
2.2 Schema Driven Error – When
reconstructing events we sometimes add
in extra info that didn’t happen.
3 COGNITIVE INTERVIEWS
3.1 Cognitive interview is a structured interview
which follows a four stage procedure.
3.3 Context Reinstatement - Reinstate the context in
which the incident happened. Recall the scene,
weather, what you were thinkin, feeling and the
3.3.1 Report Everything - Every little detail,
even if it seems trivial.
22.214.171.124 Change Persepctive - Recall the event from different
126.96.36.199.1 Reverse Order - Recall in different orders,
moving backwards and forwards in time.