Studied by 0 people
+ Gabbert et al.
describe response bias explanation:
suggests that Q wording has no effect on the memory of ppts - instead influences how they decide to answer
e.g. Loftus and Palmer (1974) “smashed” encouraged ppts to give a higher speed estimate than they remembered
describe substitution explanation:
suggests Q wording changes ppts’ memory
Loftus and Palmer’s second experiment - ppts who heard “smashed” were more likely to report seeing broken glass
→ critical verb altered memory
summarise Clifasefi et al. (2013):
used food/drink profiles to implant a false memory into ppts when asked to recall whether or not they had ever been drunk to the extent that they were sick
many ppts recalled being sick from drinking, w/ some claiming they disliked certain alcoholic drinks because of it
demonstrates substitution explanation - misleading info altered memory of ppts as their previous memory had been overwritten
what does the Yerkes-Dodson Law state?
moderate levels of arousal (stress) → optimum performance
summarise Johnson and Scott (1976):
investigated weapon focus - volunteers in a lab setting witness a row in either low anxiety (greasy pen) or high anxiety (bloody knife)
→ low anxiety associated w/ high accuracy of EWT: anxiety has a -ve effect on recall
give a +ve of Johnson and Scott (1976):
lab experiment - high intval due to good variable control
give 2 -ves of Johnson and Scott (1976):
no protection from psychological harm - induced anxiety
may test surprise rather than anxiety
summarise Yuille and Cutshall (1986):
witnesses to a real life shooting in which 2 men were shot, 1 fatally, were interviewed 4-5 months after the incident
account compared to original account
high anxiety associated w high accuracy of EWT: anxiety has a +ve effect on recall
give a +ve of Yuille and Cutshall (1986):
high ecoval - ppts experienced real anxiety in a real setting
give a -ve of Yuille and Cutshall (1986):
not all witnesses agreed to be reinterviewed - so may not be a representative sample (e..g those most traumatised may have been more likely to decline a second interview)
summarise Parker et al. (2006):
interviewed people affected by a hurricane to find a relationship between memory of events and anxiety (operationalised by damage to homes)
→ moderate levels of anxiety associated w/ high EWT accuracy: anxiety can have a +ve or -ve effect on recall depending on its extremity
give 2 +ves of Parker et al. (2006):
high ecoval - ppts experienced real anxiety in a real setting
investigated moderate levels of anxiety (as well as high and low), allowing for a better understanding of the relationship between anxiety and witness accuracy
give a -ve of Parker et al. (2006):
operationalisation of anxiety through damage may not reflect experienced anxiety
summarise Valentine and Mesout (2009):
visitors to a horror labyrinth /ed into low and high anxiety on basis of heart monitor
asked to describe an individual encountered in labyrinth
→ low anxiety associated w/ high EWT accuracy: anxiety has a -ve effect on recall
give 2 +ves of Valentine and Mesout (2009):
high ecoval - real life setting
heart monitor accurate measure of anxiety
give 2 -ves of Valentine and Mesout (2009):
not so high ecoval after all - anxiety not caused by anything really threatening
Quasi experiment - no random allocation to conditions, ppt variables may have acted as confounding variables
name and explain 2 factors affecting identification:
misleading info e.g. leading Qs/PED
anxiety e.g. weapon focus having +ve/-ve effects
describe Loftus and Palmer’s initial (1974) experiment:
aimed to see if people could be lead to remember a scene that never happened
45 students shown 7 clips of road traffic accidents
all asked “how fast were the cars going when they X?”
X substituted for contacted/hit/bumped/collided/smashed
“contacted” resulted in lowest speed guess, “smashed” highest, w/ a difference of almost 10 mph
then asked “ did you see any broken glass was seen when X?” “hit” - 4% said yes, “smashed” - 32% said yes (there was no broken glass)
give 3 strengths of Loftus and Palmer (1974):
tempval and reliable - repeats
lab study - high variable control, replicable
RWA - courts
give 4 limitations of Loftus and Palmer (1974):
lacks ecoval
individual differences
lacks popval
order effects
describe Loftus and Palmer’s additional study:
2 groups - 1 control, 1 experimental
control “did you see a broken headlight?”
experimental “did you see the broken headlight?”
2x as many people in the experimental group said they did (there was no broken headlight)
