eye witness testimony

• An eyewitness testimony is when a witness gives their account on an event, this is based on what they remember.
• Loftus and Palmer (1974):

  • looked at leading questions and how they impact EWT.
  • ppts watched the same video of a car crash, once they had watched the video they were asked "how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?" The verbs hit, bumped, collided, contacted and smashed were used.
  • ppts estimated different speeds based on the verb used in the question. The harsher the verb, the faster the speed estimated (smashed = 41mph).
  • shows that the wording of questions influences the EWT.
• Loftus and Palmer - research extension (1974):

  • a week after the initial research, some ppts were asked more questions. The ppts used were the 'smashed' and 'hit' group. The most important question asked was "did you see any broken glass?" 32% of the smash group recalled seeing broken glass; 14% of the hit group recalled seeing broken glass.
  • this proves that leading questions influence EWT.
• There are two explanations for leading questions affecting EWT. These are the response-bias and substitution explanation.
• Response-bias explanation: the way the question is worded does not change the individual's memory but it does influence how people answer.
• Substitution explanation: the way the question is worded changes the individual's memory of the event.
• Post event discussion is when witnesses discuss the event. This happens when there is more than one witness to an event.
• Gabbert et al (2003):

  • looked at PED and how this influences EWT.
  • ppts either watched the video alone or with another ppts. Ppts saw different perspectives of the same crime, only one ppt actually saw the girl stealing. Ppts in the co-witness groups then discussed the video.
  • ppts in the co-witness groups recalled 71% of inaccurate information; 60% of the ppts said that the girl was guilty even if they did not see the girl commit the crime.
  • ppts tested alone did not recall any inaccurate info.
  • PED decreases the accuracy of EWT.
• There are two explanations for PED affecting the accuracy of EWT. These are memory contamination and memory conformity.
• Memory contamination: when information witnesses share distort memories which decreases the accuracy of EWT.
• Memory conformity: witnesses go along with each other. Ppts do this to increase their social desirability or as they think the other witnesses are right. Memories do not change.
• Misleading information is information given to witnesses after the event has taken place. Leading questions & PED are forms of this.
• Misleading information AO3:

  • RWA in the criminal justice system. Research has found that leading questions change the accuracy of EWT so they are not used when interviewing witnesses. Has use. HOWEVER, Loftus & Palmer got ppts to watch a video, not the same as a real car crash. Might not be valid.
  • led to new techniques to improve recall. The cognitive interview. Increased the accuracy. Has use.
  • the substitution explanation is limited. It does not explain why recall for central parts were recalled better than peripheral parts. Lacks validity.
• Tunnel theory: witnesses focus on central details instead of peripheral details e.g., focusing on a weapon.
• Yuille and Cutshall (1986):

  • interviewed 13 witnesses of a crime 3-5 months after the event happened. Compared the answers of these interviews with those of the original interviews..
  • witnesses were asked how stressed/anxious they felt and if they had any emotional issues since the event.
  • witnesses were accurate in both interviews. Ppts who felt anxious during the event had more accurate recall than those who were not anxious.
  • anxiety does not decrease the accuracy of EWT.
• Christianson and Hubinette (1993):

  • interviewed witnesses of bank robberies.
  • all witnesses had an accurate recall of the event (75%)
  • direct victims had more accurate recall of the event
  • anxiety does not decrease the accuracy of EWT
• Valentine and Mesout (2009):

  • 2 groups: high anxiety and low anxiety.
  • Horror Labyrinth at the London dungeon. High anxiety group experienced more frightening things than the low anxiety group.
  • all ppts wore heart monitors to measure their anxiety levels.
  • the high anxiety group had worse recall of event that happened than the low anxiety group.
  • anxiety decreases the accuracy of EWT.
• Johnson and Scott (1976):

  • 2 groups, ppts thought that they were taking part in a lab study.
  • 1 group heard a heated convo and a man walk out the office with a bloody knife; the other group heard a regular convo and a man walk out with a pen and grease.
  • ppts then had to pick the man they saw out of 50 men. Ppts who saw the man with the pen had 49% accurate recall; ppts who saw the man with the knife has 33% accurate recall.
  • anxiety decreases the accuracy of EWT.
• Anxiety of EWT AO3:

  • research support: Johnson & Scott; Valentine & Mesout (anxiety decreases the accuracy of EWT). Yuille & Cutshall; Christianson & Hubinette (anxiety increases the accuracy of EWT). Reliability (don't use all 4 pieces in a para).
  • lab studies. Don't represent real-life situations. Little ecological validity but is internal validity.
  • contradictory evidence: Pickel (1998). Showed ppts videos of people in a hair salon, people were holding different objects e.g., raw chicken. Unusual situations had worse recall. Decreases validity.