Eyewitness Testimoney

• Leading questions (Loftus & Palmer)

  Participants watched clips of car accidents and then were asked questions about the accident. In one of the questions, participants were asked to estimate how fast the cars were moving when they crashed. Participants were given a different verb in their questions (bumped, contacted, hit, smashed etc.)

  ->Found that the more "intense" the verb the higher the estimated speed.

  Weakness) Lacks mundane realism -> not the same emotional impact of seeing a real accident -> lacks eco validity.
• Post-event discussion (Gabbert)

  In pairs, participants watched a video of the same crime but from different POV'S. Both participants then discussed what they saw and then individually completed a test of recall.

  ->Found that 70% of participants recalled things they DID NOT see on the video.
• Strength) Practical application in Criminal Justice System

  ->Police officers carefully word their questions when collecting e.w.t so that they don't become biased because of misleading information.
• Anxiety (Johnson & Scott)

  Low-Anxiety Condition: Heard a casual conversation; man walked by with a pen and greasy hands.

  High-Anxiety Condition: Heard a heated argument and breaking glass; man walked by with blood on his hands.

  Results: Participants were better at identifying the man from photos in the low-anxiety condition.
• Anxiety A03

  Limitation: The study may not have tested anxiety but rather surprise. Pickel's experiment, using objects like scissors, a gun, and a raw chicken, showed that eyewitness accuracy was lower with more unusual objects. This suggests weapon focus may be due to the unusualness of the object rather than anxiety.