• Like
14410779731257090974
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

14410779731257090974

  • 649 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
649
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. What is Eye Witness testimony? video clip What is Eye Witness testimony? video clip
  • 2. What is EWT?
    • Legal term for witnesses who give evidence in court concerning the identity of a suspect.
  • 3. Three stages of EWT
  • 4. Eyewitness testimony Loftus and Palmer (1974)
  • 5. Do leading questions distort the accuracy of EWT?
    • Aim: to investigate the accuracy of memory after witnessing a car accident,
    • in particular to see if leading questions distort the accuracy of an eyewitnesses’ immediate recall.
  • 6.  
  • 7. Procedures
    • Forty-five students
    • Shown films of traffic accidents.
    • Questions afterwards included a critical one about speed of car containing the word ‘hit’, ‘smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’ or ‘contacted’.
  • 8. Findings Verb Mean Speed estimate Smashed 40.8 Collided 39.3 Bumped 38.1 Hit 34.0 Contacted 31.8
  • 9. Findings
    • The group with ‘smashed’ estimated the highest speed (about 41 m.p.h.).
    • The group given the word ‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed (about 30 m.p.h.).
  • 10. Conclusions
    • Leading questions (post-event information) can have a significant effect on memory (could be on original memory or recall).
  • 11. Criticisms
    • (1) Lacks validity because it is not true to real life and lacks realism.
    • Other research has found that recall is more accurate in real life (Yuille and Cutshall, 1986).
    • This may be because people don’t take the experiment seriously or are not as emotionally aroused as in real accident.
    • (2) It has experimental control and therefore some validity.
    • This is because the IV (verb) effects the DV ( estimate. This demonstrates a causal relationship between leading questions and recall of information.
  • 12. RM
    • A Control group does not receive the independent variable. But it’s performance is assessed on the dependent variable.
    • The results can be compared with the experimental group.
    • The control group serves as a baseline measure.
  • 13. Validity
    • Lab experiments may not be taken seriously
    • Participants are not emotionally involved.
    • Foster et al better identification in real life set up.
  • 14. There is research support.
    • Loftus and Palmer (1974)
    • Procedures: 3 groups of participants: They were asked a series of questions including did you see any broken glass.
    • group 1: smashed , group 2: hit ; group 3: no questions about speed of vehicle .
    Verb condition smashed hit control Yes 16 7 6 No 34 43 44
  • 15. Loftus and Palmer (1974)
    • Findings: those given ‘smashed’ were more likely to recollect broken glass (there was none).
    • Conclusions: Shows a significant effect of post-event information on later recall of events.
  • 16. However…
    • Loftus (1979b)
    • Finding : when shown a series of pictures of a man stealing a red wallet from a women’s hand bag, 98% correctly identified the colour. Furthermore despite later being given an erroneous description of the wallet as brown, participants persisted in describing the wallet as red.
  • 17. Conclusions:
    • This shows that we may have good recall for important information, and the recall of such information may not be distorted even by misleading information.
  • 18. ARMED ROBBERY
  • 19. EWT in real life
    • Yuille and Cutshall 1986 interviewed 13 people who had witnessed an armed robbery in Canada.
    • The interviews took place more than 4 months after the crime and included two misleading questions.
  • 20. Yuille and Cutshall 1986
    • Findings: Despite these questions, the witnesses provided accurate recall that matched their initial detailed reports.
    • Conclusions:
    • This suggests that post event information may not affect memory in real life.
    • This study also shows that EWT can be very reliable .
  • 21. Individual Differences
    • Linsday 1990 identified two sources of misinformation.
      • Observation of event itself
      • Subsequent suggestions
    • Schacter et al 1991 found that elderly people have difficulty remembering the source of their information, but not the content.
    • This group is more prone to the effect of misleading information.
  • 22. Individual differences
    • Wells and Olsen 2003 found no differences between males and females despite a different focus.
  • 23. Real world
    • Wells and Olsen 2003 found that EWT testimony may be mistaken, this is supported by DNA exoneration cases.
  • 24.
    • Post event information
  • 25. Broken glass
    • Misleading questions affect storeage.
    • Loftus stop and yield
    • Bekerian and Bowers
  • 26. Review
    • Activity 4 p 27 fill in the blanks.
    • Explain why studies of EWT have been criticised as lacking in validity. 5 marks. (spec 1)
    • task 3 extended writing. 12 marks
  • 27.
    • Anxiety
    • Age of witness
  • 28. Anxiety
    • Deffenbacher et al meta analysis shoed anxiety reduced accuracy of EWT.
    • Christianson and Hubinette 1993 foudn anxiety increased accuarcy in real life bank robberies
    • Yerkes-Dodson law: accuracy is best under moderate arousal.
  • 29. WEAPONS FOCUS
  • 30. Weapons focus
    • Loftus 1979a . Identified weapons focus. There were 2 conditions:
    • In both conditions participants heard a discussion in an adjoining room.
    • In both condition 1 a man emerged holding a pen with grease on his hands.
    • In condition 2 the discussion was more heating and a man emerged holding a paper knife covered in blood.
  • 31. findings
    • When asked to identify the man from 50 photos, participants in condition 1 were 49% accurate compared with 33% accuracy in condition 1.
  • 32. conclusions
    • This suggests that the weapon may have distracted attention from the man and might explain why eyewitnesses sometimes have poor recall for certain details of a crime.
  • 33. Meta analysis
    • Steblay 1992 found that the presence of a weapon reduces the chance of correct identification of person holding the weapon.
    • Loftus 1987 monitored eye movements and found that the presence of the weapon causess attention to be physically drawn towards the weapon and away from the face.
  • 34. RM
    • Meta analysis
  • 35. Applications
    • Riniolo et al EWT from titanic was accurate.
  • 36. Age of witness
    • Yarney describe young woman , younger participants more confident no age differences.
    • Mermon et al older people less accurate when delay was one week.
    • Own age bias. Anastasi and Rhodes.
  • 37. Clip to view
    • Basketball.
  • 38. Individual differences
    • Alcohol impairs attention. Clifasefi et al 2006
  • 39.
    • Lab v field experiments.
  • 40. Laboratory experiment
    • IV manipulated to observe effect on DV, controlled.
    • (+) Can draw causal conclusion.
    • (+) Confounding variables minimized.
    • (+) Can be easily replicated.
    • (-) Artificial, contrived situation.
    • (-) Investigator and participant effects.
  • 41. Field experiment
    • Investigate causal relationships in more natural surroundings.
    • IV directly manipulated by experimenter to observe effect on DV.
    • (+) Usually higher ecological validity than lab experiment.
    • (+) Avoids some participant effects.
    • (-) Less control.
    • (-) More time-consuming.
  • 42. To do
    • RM 3.9
    • RM 3.10