Yuille & Cutshall (1986)

Aim

To investigate the accuracy of recall of eye witnesses to a real crime, in response to leading questions and over time

Method

Field study

IV

Whether they were asked they saw a broken headlight on the getaway car or if they saw a yellow panel on the car

DV

Accuracy of recall

Procedures

Witnesses interviewed by police agreed to take part in a research interview a few months later. In both sets of interviews, the eye witnesses were asked to give their account and then follow up questions were asked. The researchers asked 2 misleading questions. Half the group were asked if they saw A broken headlight and the other half were asked if they saw THE broken headlight. There was no broken headlight. Half of the group were asked if they saw A yellow panel on the car and the other half were asked if they saw THE yellow panel. The panel was in fact blue. The witnesses were then asked to rate their degree of stress of a scale of 1-7. They were also asked if they had any emotional problems since the event.Witnesses interviewed by police agreed to take part in a research interview a few months later. In both sets of interviews, the eye witnesses were asked to give their account and then follow up questions were asked. The researchers asked 2 misleading questions. Half the group were asked if they saw A broken headlight and the other half were asked if they saw THE broken headlight. There was no broken headlight. Half of the group were asked if they saw A yellow panel on the car and the other half were asked if they saw THE yellow panel. The panel was in fact blue. The witnesses were then asked to rate their degree of stress of a scale of 1-7. They were also asked if they had any emotional problems since the event.

Results

The researchers found over 1000 details compared to 650 found by police. Researchers found double the number of object details compared to police. Misleading questions had little effect on recall. 10/13 of the participants said there was NO yellow panel and NO broken headlight, which was correct.

Conclusion

Eye witnesses are very reliable, recalling large numbers of details and arguing at misleading questions.

Strengths

- High ecological validity- actual event gathering realistic data

- There was archival evidence (police records of the original testimonies) to confirm the accuracy of the memories

Limitations

- Low reliability, one-off unique case study which cannot be replicated

- Extraneous variables could not have been controlled e.g. media coverage on the event

- Small sample size, so not generalizable