| What does eye-witness testimony mean? | Legal term, referring to the use of eyewitnesses to give evidence in court concering the identity of someone who has commited a crime. |
| What is a leading question? | They are questions that are worded in a way to suggest a certain answer |
| What is misleading information? | It is incorrect information that is given to the eyewitness, usually after the event has taken place in post-event discussions or leading questions |
| What is response bias? | Wording of the question doesn't affect their EWT, just how they respond to the question |
| What is substitution bias? | Wording of question changes their memory of the event - perhpas because they were unsure in the first place. |
| What was Loftus and Palmer's aim? | To study the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony |
| What was the procedure of Loftus and Palmer's study? | Shown a film of a car crash
Asked questions like 'What speed were the car going when they hit each other'
The words hit were changed with contacted, bumped, hit, collided, smashed.
Ppts were students |
| Results of Loftus and Palmer's study? | Mean estimate of mph
Contacted: 31.8
Bumped: 34.0
Hit: 38.1
Collided: 39.3
Smashed: 40.8
No broken glass but people in 'smashed' condition said there was |
| Conclusion of Loftus and Palmer study? | When there was a more severe verb to describe the crash, the speed changed to match the severity. Shows that the type of words can change people's answer |
| Strengths of the Loftus and Palmer study? | Standardised procedures - vdo was the same for everyone
High internal validity - took place in a controlled environment
Real life application - police, law enforcement, teachers |
| Weakness of Loftus and Palmer's study? | Individual differences: younger people might not have experience with cars
Low generalisability: Occupation bias, hard to apply to a large general population
Low ecological validity: Artificial environment, lack of mundane realism of the crash |
| What is post event discussion ? | When an eyewitness discusses teh event with other eyewitnesses or other people |
| What is source monitoring theory? | Memories of the event are genuinely distorted. The eyewitness can recall information about the event but they can't recall where it came from |
| What is conformity theory? | Memories are not actually distorted by post-event discussions. Instead, the eyewitness's recall appears to change only because they go along with the accounts of co-witnesses. To get social approval, or becuase they believe are right. |
| What was Gabbert's aim? | To study the effect of post-event discussions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony |
| What was Gabbert's procedure? | 60 uni students, 60 old people
Stage crime of a girl stealing from a shop.
Paired up and told they watched the same vdo but they watched it from different angles. Pair discussed and then recall test individually. A control group with no discussion. |
| Findings of Gabbert's study? | 71% recalled parts of the crime that they had not seen
60% said the girl was guilty though they didn't see her commit the actual ccrime
0% inaccurate recall in control group |
| Strengths of Gabbert's study ? | High internal validity: Control goup, so results can be compared to a group with interviews
High generalisability: A large sample with a good age range
Standardised procedure: Asked the same questions, vdo was the same |
| Weakness of Gabbert's study? | Low ecological validity: task lacks mundane realism, can't see a crime from all different angles
Individual differences: Difference between the people didn't explain why the answer wasn't accurate for everyone. Could be source monitoring theory |
