● A01 Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony
Eyewitness Testimony: Legal term referring to an account given by people of an
event they’ve witnessed. Including : identification of perpetrators, details of the
crime scene
Misleading Information: Misleading information is incorrect information
given to an eyewitness following an event. This can be during post-event
discussion or take the form of leading questions( suggests to witness a
particular answer is desired)
● A03 Misleading Information
Loftus & Palmer (1974): Aimed to investigate how subsequent information
can affect an eyewitness’s account of an event to show that leading questions (a
question that suggests what answer is desired or leads to the desired answer)
could distort eyewitness testimony accounts and so have a confabulating effect,
as the account would become distorted by cues provided in the question. To test
this Loftus and Palmer (1974) asked 45 students to estimate the speed of motor
vehicles using different forms of questions. Estimating vehicle speed is
something people are generally poor at and so they may be more open to
suggestions. They were each shown the same clips of traffic accidents.They were
then asked to write an account of the accident they had just seen and asked to
answer some specific questions, one of which was the critical question, to do
with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision. "How fast were the cars
going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted each other?" Mean
speed given for each of the different verbs: smashed: 40.8 mph & contacted: 31.8
mph
These results show that the phrasing of the question brought about a change in
speed estimate. The verb 'smashed' elicited a higher speed estimate than the verb
'contacted'. - The results could have been due to a distortion in the memory of the
participant, which could have been caused by the verbal label that was used, or
the way in which the critical question was asked.
The results could also be due to response bias factors, in which case the Ppts are
not sure of the exact speed and so adjust their answers to fit in with the
expectations of the questioner (demand characteristics).
Experiment 2: 150 students were shown a short (1 minute) film which contained
a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned about
it.There were 3 conditions and the IV was manipulated by the wording of the
question.50 Ps were asked: "How fast were the cars going when they hit each
other?" 50 Ps were asked: "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into
Eyewitness Testimony: Legal term referring to an account given by people of an
event they’ve witnessed. Including : identification of perpetrators, details of the
crime scene
Misleading Information: Misleading information is incorrect information
given to an eyewitness following an event. This can be during post-event
discussion or take the form of leading questions( suggests to witness a
particular answer is desired)
● A03 Misleading Information
Loftus & Palmer (1974): Aimed to investigate how subsequent information
can affect an eyewitness’s account of an event to show that leading questions (a
question that suggests what answer is desired or leads to the desired answer)
could distort eyewitness testimony accounts and so have a confabulating effect,
as the account would become distorted by cues provided in the question. To test
this Loftus and Palmer (1974) asked 45 students to estimate the speed of motor
vehicles using different forms of questions. Estimating vehicle speed is
something people are generally poor at and so they may be more open to
suggestions. They were each shown the same clips of traffic accidents.They were
then asked to write an account of the accident they had just seen and asked to
answer some specific questions, one of which was the critical question, to do
with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision. "How fast were the cars
going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted each other?" Mean
speed given for each of the different verbs: smashed: 40.8 mph & contacted: 31.8
mph
These results show that the phrasing of the question brought about a change in
speed estimate. The verb 'smashed' elicited a higher speed estimate than the verb
'contacted'. - The results could have been due to a distortion in the memory of the
participant, which could have been caused by the verbal label that was used, or
the way in which the critical question was asked.
The results could also be due to response bias factors, in which case the Ppts are
not sure of the exact speed and so adjust their answers to fit in with the
expectations of the questioner (demand characteristics).
Experiment 2: 150 students were shown a short (1 minute) film which contained
a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned about
it.There were 3 conditions and the IV was manipulated by the wording of the
question.50 Ps were asked: "How fast were the cars going when they hit each
other?" 50 Ps were asked: "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into
