EWT
- Created by: sophie.cumberpatch
- Created on: 11-01-20 17:52
View mindmap
- Eye witness testimony
- Misleading info
- Leading questions - due to phrasing suggests answer
- Loftus + Palmer - students watch car accident, critical question - how fast were the cars going when they...
- Verbs = hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted
- Mean speed - contacted - 31.8mph, smashed = 40.5mph, leading question biased recall
- Response bias - wording no effect on memory, influences decision to answer
- Substitution - L+P, leading question changed memory, smashed = more likely to report broken glass
- Loftus + Palmer - students watch car accident, critical question - how fast were the cars going when they...
- Post event discussion - co-witnesses discuss crime, testimonies = contaminated
- Gabbert et al - participants in pairs watched clip of crime different angle, one sees name of book, then discussed crime
- 71% mistakingly recalled aspects of the crime they could not see, control group = 0%,
- go along to win social approval or believe they are wrong - memory conformity
- 71% mistakingly recalled aspects of the crime they could not see, control group = 0%,
- Gabbert et al - participants in pairs watched clip of crime different angle, one sees name of book, then discussed crime
- Evaluation
- Strength - IRL applications
- Practical uses for police officers, consequences of wrong EWT = bad, Loftus - police need to be careful on question phrasing, important for legal system + EWs
- Limitation L+P - artificial materials
- Clips of accidents different form IRL, Yuille + Cutshall - armed robbery, accurate recall after 4months, little about leading q's in IRL crime
- Limitation - individual differences in accuracy
- Anatasi + Rhodes - older less accurate in EWT, all age groups more accurate in own age group (own-age bias), studies = young to identify, old = less accurate = wrong
- Limitation - demand characteristics
- Participants wish to be helpful, asked question guess yes, seems more helpful, challenges validity, answers may not reflect memory
- Limitaion - lacks external validity
- Foster et al, EWs have more impact IRL, more effort to search memory, not in research, accuracy greater IRL due to seriousness
- Strength - IRL applications
- Leading questions - due to phrasing suggests answer
- Anxiety - physiological arousal in body, worried thoughts, increased heart rate/sweaty, normal reaction during stress
- Negative effect
- Johnson + Scott - believed lab study = not, waiting room, heard argument.
- Low-anxiety = pen + grease on hands
- 49% identified from 50photos
- High-anxiety = breaking glass, paper knife + blood
- 33% identified
- Tunnel theory - witness' attention on weapon - source of anxiety
- Low-anxiety = pen + grease on hands
- Physiological arousal prevents attention to cues
- Johnson + Scott - believed lab study = not, waiting room, heard argument.
- Positive effect
- Fight/flight increases alertness
- Yullie + Cutshall - IRL shooting Canada, shop owner shot thief dead, 21 witness - 13 took part, interviews held 4-5months after compared to original police interviews
- Accuracy = no. of details in each account, rate stress on 7 point scale, asked about emotional problems since
- Very accurate little change, some details less accurate - colour or height, age, weight estimates. Highest stress = most accurate 88% compared to 75%.
- Contradictory findings
- Yerkes + Dodson - emotional arousal + performance 'inverted U', Deffenbacher EWT = low anxiety = low accuracy, optimum anxiety level after = decrease
- Evaluation
- Limitation - J+S - tests surprise not anxiety
- Pickel - gun, scissors, raw chicken, wallet, in hairdressers, EWT poor for high usualness, not about effect of anxiety
- Limitation - field studies lack control
- PED may occur, extraneous variables responsible not anxiety
- Limitation - ethical issues
- Anxiety = psychological harm, IRL studies better no creation, raise questions on conducting this research
- Inverted U too simplistic
- Anxiety difficult to measure, cognitive, physiological, behavioural elements, assumes linked to poor accuracy, fails to account for other factors
- Limitation - demand characteristics in lab
- Work out question, respond how they believe is helpful, reduces validity
- Limitation - J+S - tests surprise not anxiety
- Negative effect
- Cognitive interview - Fisher + Geiselman
- Report everything - may trigger other memories
- Reinstate the context - context dependent forgetting
- Reverse order - prevent people reporting expectations, prevents lies
- Change perspective - disrupt expectations of schemas
- Enhanced CI - Fisher et al
- When to establish eye contact and relinquish
- Reduce anxiety
- Minimise distractions
- Speak slowly
- Open questions
- Evaluation
- Strength - some useful
- Milne + Bull, report everything + context reinstatement = better recall, 2 used if not all
- Strength - effectiveness of enhanced CI
- Kohnken et al meta-analysis 50 studies, more correct than standard interview, real benefits
- Limitation - time consuming
- More time needed to establish rapport, Kebball + Wagstaff CI requires training, unlikely to be used
- Limitation - unreliable variations of CI
- Use CI or enhanced, difficult to draw conclusions in general
- Limitation - increase in inaccurate info
- Recall incorrect also heightened, Kohnken et al, 81% increase correct, 61% increase incorrect, all info with caution
- Strength - some useful
- Misleading info
Comments
No comments have yet been made