Yuille and Cutshall (1986) - Reconstructive Memory Counter Study

What type of experiment was Y&C?

Field Study

Aim

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

Background

- Used witnesses who had seen a shooting in Vancouver Canada
- Thief entered the shop, tied up the owner and stole money and guns.
- Owner armed himself with a revolver and went outside to note down the number plate
- Thief fired 2 shots from 6ft away
- Owner fired all 6 shots from his revolver in defence
- Thief was killed and owner recovered from his injuries

Procedure

-21 witnesses interviewed by police immediately after the event.
-13 of those agreed to take part in a research interview 4-5 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
- Action details accounted for 52% of the details obtained by researchers but 60% for police
- Researchers found double the number of object details compared to police
- Misleading questions had little effect on recall. 10 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
-Those directly involved in the event remembered more than in lab studies
- Y&C agreed it would be hard to generalise the findings as it was a unique event and only 13 participants

Strengths

+ High ecological validity- actual event gathering realistic data
+ Valid and qualitative data- more in depth and specific
+ Can be used to criticise the research of Loftus and Palmer

Weaknesses

- Low reliability, one-off unique case study which cannot be replicated
- Extraneous variables coud not have been controlled e.g. media coverage on the event
- Ungeneralisable