Eyewitness testimony

• factors affecting eyewitness testimony

  • misleading information
  • leading questions
  • post-event discussion
  • anxiety
  • positive and negative effects
• Eyewitness testimony

  ability of people to remember the details of events, of crimes which they have observed. Accuracy can be affected by misleading information and anxiety.
• misleading information

  incorrect information given to eyewitness after an event.
• leading questions

  a question which is phrased in a way which suggest a certain answer.
• Research- leading questions

  Loftus and Palmer asked participants to watch clips of car accidents, then asked them a 'leading' question. Participants asked to describe how fast the car was going.

  Each group was given a different verb in critical question- hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed.

  • Findings: mean estimated speed calculated for each group.
  • the verb 'contacted' resulted in mean speed of 31.8mph, the verb 'smashed' the mean was 40.5mph
  • leading questions biased the eyewitnesses recall of an event.
• Why leading questions affect EWT

  Response- biased explanation= the word of the question has no real effect on the participants memories, but influences how they answer.

  • When participants get leading questions with the verb 'smashed' it encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate.
• Leading questions research-2

  Loftus and Palmer conducted a 2nd experiment which proposes the wording of a leading question changes the participants memory of the film.

  • participants who heard the word 'smashed' were more likely to report seeing broken glass than those who heard the word 'hit'
  • the critical verb altered their memory, the verb is suggestive and can shape memory.
• post-event discussion

  occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses.

  This may influence the accuracy of each witness's recall of the event.
• Research on post-event discussion

  Gabbert et al, studied participants in pairs- each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view. Each participant could see elements of the event that the other couldn't. They then discussed what they had seen then completed a recall test.

  • Findings: 71% mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they didn't see but was picked up from discussion. -control group=0%
  • so evidence for memory conformity.
• why post-event discussion affects EWT

  Memory contamination= when co-witnesses discuss the crime their testimonies become altered- they combine information from other witnesses with their own memories- so memory is changed.

  Memory conformity= Gabbert concluded witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or they believed other witnesses were right- the actual memory is unchanged.
• Evaluation- real world application

  Practical uses in the criminal justice system.

  • Consequences of inaccurate EWT can be serious- Loftus believes leading questions can have a distorting effect on memory- police need to be careful about how the phrase questions during interviews.
  • Psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert eyewitnesses in court and explain the limits of EWT to juries- so can help improve legal system by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT.
• Evaluation- practical applications- counterpoint

  Loftus and Palmer- participants watched clips in a lab which is different from real life.

  • Foster pointed out that what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences but in research, responses don't matter in the same way- less motivated to be accurate.
  • so suggests Loftus was pessimistic about effects of misleading information.- eyewitnesses may be more dependable.
• Evaluation- Evidence against substitution

  limitation= EWT may be more accurate for some aspects of an event than others.

  Sutherland and Hayne showed participants clips and asked misleading questions.

  • Recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral ones.
  • participants attention focused on central features as memory was more resistant to misleading information- outcome not predicted by substitution explanation.