Eye witness testimonies

?
  • Created by: FatCat3
  • Created on: 15-02-22 14:16
what is an eye witness testimony?
It is a piece of evidence given to court that states an account of what someone saw during a criminal event
1 of 21
what can EWT be effected by? (list the factors)
-misleading information
-leading questions
-post-event discussion
-anxiety
2 of 21
who studied misleading information (leading questions) and what was the study ?
Loftus and Palmer used an independent measures design to with 45 American students in 5 groups. PP watched a video of a car crash and were asked about the speed of the car with manipulated verbs although the cars didn't crash-
3 of 21
continuing w previous slide
-'how fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted'- [Sarah Comes Before Henry's Crystal]. results showed and estimated speed of 40.5mph= 'smashed', 31.8mph='contacted' so accuracy of EWTs can be effected by LQ.
4 of 21
what was their second experiment/study?
1 week later, 150 American students asked if they saw any broken glass in the video (there was none), similar to method as exp 1, but PP divided into 3 groups, 1= smashed, 2=hit and 3=not asked results showed smashed had 16, hit had 7 and-
5 of 21
continuing w previous card
-control had 6, showing ppl who had been misled by words ie smashed were more likely to say they saw broken glass, effecting accuracy of EWT.
6 of 21
name the evaluations
-lacks ecological validity, although car crash is a genuine measure, in reality a witness doesn't see the whole event, only a fraction of it or are directly involved themselves, so results don't reflect every day incidents.[or possible individual differen
7 of 21
continuing w previous card
-smashed PP had more experience driving so assumed there would be glass, etc]
-population validity, only 45 or 150 American students who may have less experiences in driving so they may be less accurate at estimating speeds
8 of 21
continuing w previous card
+highly controlled, reduces chances of extraneous (irrelevant) variables so there is higher validity and is easily replicable
9 of 21
what us misleading info from post-event discussion?
when co-witnesses talk about what they experienced or saw in the event
10 of 21
who studied this and what was the study?
Gabbert et al took 60 students from uni and 60 other adults in a local community, PP watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet and pp were asked individually (control group) or in a co-witness group (who were told they watched the-
11 of 21
continuing w previous card
-same video when they didn't). co-witnesses discussed the crime and everyone competed a questionnaire. results were 71% of co- witnesses recalled seeing something they didn't, 60% said the girl was guilty tho she didn't steal, showing power of co-witnesse
12 of 21
name the evaluations
-lacks ecological validity IRL witnesses would have different perspectives of the crime (but its better then Loftus and palmers exp and pp knew it was an exp and might've payed more attention)
+good populations validity, younger and older ppl-
13 of 21
continuing w previous card
-found no differences within ages
-causality issue, don't know if it wasn't due to poor memory, conformity or social pressure so more research is needed.
14 of 21
who studied anxiety?
Johnson and Scott did the experiment but Loftus analysed and published the results of exp.
15 of 21
what was the study?
using an independent measures design, PP were invited the lab and told to wait in the reception area, the receptionist exceeded herself and pp were left alone. 2 conditions, 1. no-weapon, pp overheard a disagreement and saw sm1 leave with-
16 of 21
continuing w previous card
-hands covered in grease and holding a pen. 2. weapon- pp overhead a heated exchange, broken glass, crashing chairs and sm1 left with blood in hands and a paperknife in their hands. then pp were shown 50 photos and were asked to point out the individual.
17 of 21
continuing w previous card
results showed those in condition 1 identified target 49% of the time, pp in condition 2 identified target 33% of the time. Loftus said high levels of anxiety cause PP to worry about weapon rather then who the person was, reducing accuracy of EWT.
18 of 21
name the evaluations
-case study Yullie and Cutshall found opposite results, using a real life shooting (1 person killed and people wounded) there were 21 witnesses and 13 interviews were held as a follow up, even 5 months later witnesses were accurate and had-
19 of 21
continuing w previous card
-loads of details such as age, height, weight, etc and refused to answer leading questions that seemed bias.
-lacks ecological validity as pp may have anticipated smthn to happen while waiting and-
20 of 21
continuing w. previous card
-mundane realism as real life causes of anxiety are more extreme due to ie blood
-cultural bias (in America, small non-representative samples) so experimental reductionism may also take place
-nomothetic approach
21 of 21

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

what can EWT be effected by? (list the factors)

Back

-misleading information
-leading questions
-post-event discussion
-anxiety

Card 3

Front

who studied misleading information (leading questions) and what was the study ?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

continuing w previous slide

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

what was their second experiment/study?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »