Kirsty White
Mind Map by , created over 5 years ago

Eye Witness Testimony - Psychology

Kirsty White
Created by Kirsty White over 5 years ago
Biology Unit 2 - DNA, meiosis, mitosis, cell cycle
English Language
A2 Level Biology: Transcription & Translation
Ollie O'Keeffe
GCSE AQA Biology 2 Plants & Photosynthesis
Lilac Potato
The Skeleton and Muscles
james liew
Hazel Meades
AS Psychology - Core Studies - Bandura, Ross & Ross
Ellen Powell
Psychology | Unit 4 | Addiction - Explanations
Psychology subject map
Jake Pickup
History of Psychology
1.1 AGE
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 recall. More reliable as repeated. More representative – larger sample sign. Higher ecological validity. Cannot genralise findings to children
1.2.1 Loftus & Palmer (1974). Study 1 Concluded the 9mph difference between verbs smashed & contacted suggests leading questions does affect accuracy of EWT recall. AIM: Test if use of leading questions affected memory recall. 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. Low ecological validity – stress levels not the same. Cannot generalise – it’s all students. Cannot generalise – small sample size.
1.2.2 Loftus & Palmer (1974). Study 2 Concluded that memory is altered by leading questions. 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 glass!) Cannot generalise. Low ecological validity.
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 identify man. 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. Found - Highest stress levels recalled more accurate. Concluded - in real incidents involving high stress levels, memory proved to be more accurate and detailed. 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. 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). Witnesses who experienced the highest levels of stress were actually closer to the event – this may have helped with their accuracy of their memory recall.
2 Reconstructive 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.
3.1 Cognitive interview is a structured interview which follows a four stage procedure.
3.2 CR
3.2.1 RE CP RO
3.3 Context Reinstatement - Reinstate the context in which the incident happened. Recall the scene, weather, what you were thinkin, feeling and the preceding events.
3.3.1 Report Everything - Every little detail, even if it seems trivial. Change Persepctive - Recall the event from different people's viewpoints. Reverse Order - Recall in different orders, moving backwards and forwards in time.

Media attachments