A Study into Eyewitness Testimony
Word Count
1,500
Contents Page
Abstract page 3
Introduction page 4
Method page 6
Results page 8
Discussion page 11
References page 13
Appendices page 14 2
Abstract
Thirty College students took part in an independent measures study to determine if leading questions affected the recall of an event. Fifteen participants were given a set for five questions asking about a bank robbery played to them before hand. Once that was completed they were then asked to write down anything they could remember about the event. The other fifteen were given a set of five leading questions and then the five non-leading questions the other group had first which asked questions to produce answers that would incorporate the information given in the leading questions. It was thought that the information given in the leading questions was blatantly wrong and so this could affect whether the misinformation was taken in or discarded as that.
However, the result obtained from the study showed that the participants who were given the leading questions made more errors when recalling the information than the participants who were not subjected to the leading questions. Statistical analysis showed that the results obtained were significant at the 0.05 level; therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. From this it can be concluded that leading questions somehow disrupt the storage of information of a particular event and affect the recall of this event due to this misinformation.
3
Introduction
The cognitive approach deals with memory and eyewitness testimony. It is considered that there is a long-term and short-term memory. Memory is viewed as a means of processing information. It is held in the short-term memory and, if rehearsed, it is then encoded and transferred to the long-term memory from where it can be retrieved. The short-term memory can only hold seven items of information, plus or minus two, for around fifteen seconds. The long-term memory can hold countless bits of information for any length of time. (Cited in Warmington et al, 2002.)
There are a number of factors that can interfere with the recall of information. The long-term memory is not a photographic memory, recalling exactly what happened at what time. This causes major problems when it comes to statements and identity parades involved in criminal proceedings. A study published in the Devlin Report in the 1970's show that in the USA up to 10,000 wrong convictions a year were based on eyewitness testimony.
A major factor that can have serious effects on the reliability of eyewitness testimonies is whether or not the witness has been subjected to leading questions and misinformation. Loftus and Palmer (1974, cited in Eyerd and Flanagan, 2000) asked witnesses to a car collision to recall the events by answering a series of questions. They used different verbs to describe the collision. They were asked to estimate the speed of the car when it smashed, collided, hit, or bumped the other car. When they used the word smashed to describe the collision the mean estimate of the speed the cars were traveling at was 6.4mph faster than the actual speed of the car. Also 18% of those people reported seeing broken glass even though there was none. (Cited in Elander, 2002)
Word Count
1,500
Contents Page
Abstract page 3
Introduction page 4
Method page 6
Results page 8
Discussion page 11
References page 13
Appendices page 14 2
Abstract
Thirty College students took part in an independent measures study to determine if leading questions affected the recall of an event. Fifteen participants were given a set for five questions asking about a bank robbery played to them before hand. Once that was completed they were then asked to write down anything they could remember about the event. The other fifteen were given a set of five leading questions and then the five non-leading questions the other group had first which asked questions to produce answers that would incorporate the information given in the leading questions. It was thought that the information given in the leading questions was blatantly wrong and so this could affect whether the misinformation was taken in or discarded as that.
However, the result obtained from the study showed that the participants who were given the leading questions made more errors when recalling the information than the participants who were not subjected to the leading questions. Statistical analysis showed that the results obtained were significant at the 0.05 level; therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. From this it can be concluded that leading questions somehow disrupt the storage of information of a particular event and affect the recall of this event due to this misinformation.
3
Introduction
The cognitive approach deals with memory and eyewitness testimony. It is considered that there is a long-term and short-term memory. Memory is viewed as a means of processing information. It is held in the short-term memory and, if rehearsed, it is then encoded and transferred to the long-term memory from where it can be retrieved. The short-term memory can only hold seven items of information, plus or minus two, for around fifteen seconds. The long-term memory can hold countless bits of information for any length of time. (Cited in Warmington et al, 2002.)
There are a number of factors that can interfere with the recall of information. The long-term memory is not a photographic memory, recalling exactly what happened at what time. This causes major problems when it comes to statements and identity parades involved in criminal proceedings. A study published in the Devlin Report in the 1970's show that in the USA up to 10,000 wrong convictions a year were based on eyewitness testimony.
A major factor that can have serious effects on the reliability of eyewitness testimonies is whether or not the witness has been subjected to leading questions and misinformation. Loftus and Palmer (1974, cited in Eyerd and Flanagan, 2000) asked witnesses to a car collision to recall the events by answering a series of questions. They used different verbs to describe the collision. They were asked to estimate the speed of the car when it smashed, collided, hit, or bumped the other car. When they used the word smashed to describe the collision the mean estimate of the speed the cars were traveling at was 6.4mph faster than the actual speed of the car. Also 18% of those people reported seeing broken glass even though there was none. (Cited in Elander, 2002)
