2. Eyewitness Testimony

3. Violence and Recall Loftus & Burns: showed participants a filmed bank robbery. One version shots were fired but no one was hurt Another version a young boy was hit in the face and collapsed bleeding from the head. Those who viewed the violent scene gave less accurate descriptions of the incident.

4. Language and Recall Language is influential and the way in which a question is phrased and the use of leading questions has serious implications when interviewing eye witnesses.

5. Eyewitness Testimony Psychologists and law academics interested in this because the process of recalling an event is a psychological phenomenon There is a need to know just how reliable and accurate the information provided by an eye witness can be!

6. Violence and Recall Recall for violent events are less accurate than for less violent events. Clifford & Hollin (1981): participants shown 6 different video-taped scenes: 3 showed a violent crime and 3 showed a non-violent crime. Findings: recall of appearance of attacker was less accurate in the violent scenes Why do you think that might be?

7. Watch this video carefully Activity! Answer the questions based on what you saw in the film.

8. Loftus and Palmer Aim of the study: To examine the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of speed estimates and perceived consequences of a car crash.

9. Loftus and Palmer Procedure of experiment: 45 students tested in groups in a lab experiment. 7 films of traffic accidents were shown ranging from 5-30 seconds.

10. Loftus and Palmer: Procedure Participants were firstly given an open-ended question asking “give an account of the accident you have just seen”. Participants were then given specific questions about the accident. The critical question was: “about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”

11. Loftus and Palmer: Procedure Nine participants were asked this question. The remaining participants were equally divided into groups of nine, and the word ‘hit’ was replaced with ‘smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’ and ‘contacted’. Participants estimates of speed in each group was recorded.

12. Rank in order which verb you think the participants rated the highest speed Verb1 being fastest 5 being slowest Contacted Smashed Bumped Collided Hit 1 2 5 3 4

13. Findings The table shows the mean speed estimates for the various verbs: VerbMean Estimate (mph) Smashed40.8 Collided39.3 Bumped38.1 Hit34.0 Contacted31.8

14. Findings of Experiment 1

15. Findings This shows that participates estimated that the vehicles were travelling fastest when he verb ‘smashed’ was used: Almost 10 miles difference between contacted and smashed! Shows that a single word within a question can affect a witness’s answer to that question. Leading questions can distort a person’s memory for an event.

16. Loftus Shows participants a film in which a car was seen on country road. Half the participants were asked to judge the speed of the car “as it passed the barn” and others were asked to judge speed of the car without reference to a barn that did not actually exist.

17. Loftus A week later the participants were asked had they seen the barn? 17% of the “primed” participants said wrongly that they had compared to 3% of the non- primed group. Shows… even small changes in language used in questioning may affect what witnesses recall.

18. Loftus & Zanni Showed a short film of a car accident. Some eyewitnesses were asked if they had seen “the broken headlamp” Others asked if they had see “a broken headlamp” 17% of those asked about “the” broken headlamp reported seeing it compared with only 7% of those who were asked about “a” broken headlamp

19. Evaluation of Loftus’ Research Lab experiment: Artificial environment Lack of ecological validity. Lack of mundane realism. Results findings could be generalised as it is based on a subject that occurs every day. Big influence on how witnesses to crime are now interviewed.

20. Evaluation of Loftus’ Research How do you think that this experiment would differ from a real life situation of witnessing an actual car crash?

21. Evaluation of Loftus’ Research For an eyewitness viewing a real car accident: there would be much greater motivation to observe and memorise the events!

22. Reconstructive Memory: Barlett 1932 Argued that people do not passively record memories as exact copies of new information they receive. They actively try and make sense of it in terms of what they already know – a process Bartlett called “effort after meaning”.

23. Reconstructive Memory: Barlett 1932 Suggested that information may be remember in a distorted way. People do not remember what actually happened but what they think should or could have happened. Mental structures; past experiences; and expectations that influence memory: SCHEMAS

24. Reconstructive Memory: Barlett 1932 Schemas are organised packages of knowledge about objects and events etc. They are built up through experience and stored in LTM. Provide frameworks to help deal with new information and experiences.

25. Reconstructive Memory: Barlett 1932 When schemas are related to social behaviours they are called scripts and consists of stereotypical sequences of actions that are typical for a given occasion e.g. visiting the dentist.

26. Cohen suggests schemas affect memory in several ways: People tend to ignore information that is incompatible with an existing schema They remember the central meaning of information with to be store without the exact detail. E.g. conversations. People tend to use schemas to fill in the gaps, to make sense of what is seen by using past knowledge to help understand a new situation

27. Cohen suggests schemas affect memory in several ways: Memories may become distorted so that events fit an existing schema. E.g. stereotype of robbers may be that they wear masks. As a result a person may report seeing a mask worn, when in fact the robber wore dark glasses. Schemas are used to help us guess what probably happened when we cannot really remember.

28. Bartlett and Reconstructive Memory A game of Chinese Whispers gave Bartlett an idea which he developed into a radically different approach to the study of memory. He discovered that when he asked people to repeat an unfamiliar story they had read, they changed it to fit their existing knowledge, and it was this revised story that became incorporated into their memory.

29. “War of the Ghosts” Aim of the study: to investigate the impact of prior knowledge/experience (schemas) on memory.

30. “War of the Ghosts” Procedure: A natural experiment. English participants were asked to read a piece of text. The text was selected to produce a conflict between its contents and the reader’s own knowledge of the world. This was done to see if the participants would use his/her own schemas on the contents, therefore distorting the “War of the Ghosts” text.

31. “War of the Ghosts” Procedure Continued: The text was an unfamiliar North American folk story. Participants were asked to recall the story on a number of occasions at intervals of increasing length: days, weeks, months. Read the “War of the Ghosts” story on page 32 of your booklets!

32. “War of the Ghosts” Findings: Found that when asked to recall the story that the accounts were distorted to fit with western culture and perspective. Look at the examples of such distortions on page 33 of your booklets! Changes were also made to the order to make the story more coherent. Emotions were also distorted as participants tended to put their own feelings and attitudes into the original story.

33. “War of the Ghosts” Conclusions: Changes and distortions made to the story were necessary rationalisations as the story did not fit the pre-existing schemas. Research criticised for lacking objectivity.

34. Bartletts’ study on line drawings Asked participants to reproduce line drawings from memory. E.g. one drawing could be labelled as a “pick axe” or “anchor”. Participants were then asked to draw “pick axe” or “anchor”. The participant produced, reflected the label they were given regarding the line drawing.

35. Criticisms of Reconstructive theory of Memory Bartlett’s original research was more ecologically valid than most, but was criticised for its lack of experimental research. Bartlett and others have been said to over- emphasise the inaccuracy of memory and using unfamiliar material to support the constructive effect of schemas on memory. Even quite complex real life material can often be accurately recalled.