Eyewitness testimony
- Created by: P.Bradley
- Created on: 11-04-15 08:45
View mindmap
- Eyewitness testimony
- Anxiety
- Loftus pen study
- Procedure.
- Participants took part in one of two conditions (Independent group design)
- Condition 1: overheared a conversation about a machine breaking, then spotted a man holding a pen with oil on it.
- Condition 2: overheard a heated argument and spotted a man holding a paper knife.
- All particpants had to identify the person they saw from a photo line up.
- Findings.
- condition 1: more than 50% of participants identified the person correctly
- condition 2: less than 30% of participants accurately identified the person correctly.
- This shows that anxiety plays a role in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
- Evaluation
- High experimental validaty- because the procedure was highly controlled.
- ethical issues: participants were deceived about the true nature, participants in conditin 2 may have also had low levels of anxiety.
- Low ecological validaty: the procedure was artificial, so can not be applied to real life situation.
- Supported by: Clifford and Scott (1978): who found that people who watched a violent film recalled less off the 40 items correctly than those in the controlled group.
- Procedure.
- Loftus pen study
- Age
- Children
- Suggestibilty
- Ceci et al
- Findings
- Children of the age of 3,4 were more susceptible to having their memories altered by leading questions.
- Mermories of children between 3 and 5 are weaker and fade faster than those of older children and that make is more uncertain about details of the event.
- Findings
- Warren et al:
- Procedure:
- Gave children and adults a story to read and asked them 20 questions, 15 were misleading.
- Findings
- They found that children were more likely to be influenced by leading questions.
- in a second experiment they were told that the questions were hard an theyll make mistakes: both groups gave less correct answers.
- Procedure:
- Ceci et al
- Memory Processes
- Goodman and Reed
- Procedure:
- children of the age of 3 and 6 years old took part in a variation of the game simon says, with an unfamilure male. They were aske questions five days later.
- Findings
- Found that the two age groups had the same level of accuracy.
- however it did seem that the 3 year olds were less detailed and the two age groups had different types of mistakes.
- Procedure:
- Saywitz
- ( Used to support Goodman and Reed)
- Goodman and Reed
- Procedure:
- children of the age of 3 and 6 years old took part in a variation of the game simon says, with an unfamilure male. They were aske questions five days later.
- Findings
- Found that the two age groups had the same level of accuracy.
- however it did seem that the 3 year olds were less detailed and the two age groups had different types of mistakes.
- Procedure:
- Goodman and Reed
- Procedure:
- Asked children to listen a discribe what they heard in the auditotape.
- Findings:
- The recall of the 8 years old was less detailed but as accurate as older children. (11 and 15)
- The 8 years were more inclined to exaggerate and contradict.
- ( Used to support Goodman and Reed)
- Goodman and Reed
- Suggestibilty
- Elderly
- Cohen and Falkner
- Procedure:
- Participants either aged 35 or 70
- They were shown a silent clip show of a kidnapping
- 10 minutes later participants were given on of two versions of: one accurate and with false details
- Later on they were asked to recall the slidshow
- Findings:
- It was found that the elderly participants were more likely to be influenced by the incorrect information in their recall of the slide show.
- Procedure:
- Coxon and Valentine:
- Used participants of the ages of (7 to 9), (60 to 85) and (16 to 18)
- Findings:
- Immature development in children, meaning they were more likely to be influnced by misleading questions.
- Advancing age in elderly made them more prone to being influenced by misleading information.
- Cohen and Falkner
- Children
- Misleading information
- Loftus and Palmer
- Procedure.
- Participant watched a slide show of a car accident.
- When asked how fast the car was going the word hit was replaced with: Contacted, Colided, Bumped, Smashed.
- 45 American students, oppurtunity sample, (Independent group design)
- Findings.
- The verb used in the question effected the speed of the car.
- Contacted: 32 MPH
- Smashed: 41 MPH
- Evaluation.
- Low ecological validaty: doesnt represent real life application.
- Ethnocentric: only used American students so cant apply the results to the general population.
- High experimetal validaty: lab settings meaning it can be reciplicated.
- Procedure.
- Loftus and Palmer
- Anxiety
Comments
No comments have yet been made