749416
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von DauntlessAlpha, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von DauntlessAlpha
vor mehr als 10 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| What is EWT? | EWT is a legal term referring to the use of eyewitnesses to give evidence in court concerning the identity of someone who has committed a crime |
| What are the 3 stages of EW memory? | EW memory goes through 3 stages: encoding (into long term memory of details of event but is partial and distorted), retention (for a period of time - memories may be lost during this stage) and retrieval. When memory is retrieved, the fragmented images are reconstructed (based on existing schemas) to gibe it a more coherent "videotape" feel |
| How do memory distortions affect the complete truth? | However, the eye witness may not be telling the complete truth even if they believe they are as memory is subject to distortions (due to reconstruction based on existing schemas) so what tey're saying may not be 100% accurate - this is a major concern. |
| What does the Innocence project claim? | The innocence project claims that EW misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the USA, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions that were subsequently overturned through DNA testing |
| How are leading questions an explanation of inaccuracies of EWT? | One explanation offered for the inaccuracy of EWT is that police/officials ask leading qs (questions that either by form/content, suggest to the witness what answer is desired) which may alter retrieval stage and affect subsequent recall by triggering schemas related to the question which our mind will naturally embed the memories into. These questions can lead to inaccuracies in reconstruction of memory |
| Why might leading Qs affect EW's ability to judge speed of vehicles? | Because people are quite poor at judging numerical details of traffic accidents such as speed, time and distance. |
| What was surprising about what Marshal (1969) found about Air Force personnel?Give an explanation for these surprising results | Marshall (1969) found that when Air Force personnel who knew in advance that they would be asked to estimate the speed of a vehicle observing a car at 12 mph, their estimates ranged from 10-50mph. Such estimates may be influenced by certain variables such as the phrasing of a question to elicit a speed judgement. |
| What did Filmore (1971) say about differential rates of movement and how these led the listener to assume different consequences of impact? | Filmore (1969) suggests that using the words "smashed" and "hit" implies diffrential rates of movement. Such words also led the listener to assume different consequences fo the impact to which they are referring with a "hit" being perceived as gentler than smashed. |
| What did L+P aim to investigate with their leading questions? | The accuracy/innaccuracy of memory with particular reference to the effect of leading questions on estimates of speed. |
| What were the aims of the first and second questions? | The aim of the 1st experiment was to see if estimates of speed would be influenced by the wording of the question. The second experiment investigated whether leading questions simply bias a person's response or actually alter the memory that is stored |
| How many students were there in the exp 1 and what were they shown? | In exp 1, there were 45 students who were shown 7 film clips of different traffic accidents which were originally part of a road safety film and the film segments ranged from 5-30 seconds. |
| What happened to the participants after each clip? | After each clip, participants received a questionnaire in which they were asked to give an account of the accident they'd seen and were also asked a series of specific questions about the accident among which was one critical question |
| What was the critical question? | "About how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?" - the blank space was replaced by one of the following words - hit, smashed, collided, bumped and contacted. The participants' estimates were recoreded in mph |
| How many students in exp 2 and what were they shown? | In exp 2, a new set of 150 student participants were shown a film of a multiple car crash which actually lasted less than 4 seconds. In part 1 of the exp, the participants were then asked a set of questions including the critical question about speed and they were divided into 3 groups each consisting of 50 participants. |
| What were group 1, 2 and 3 asked? | Group 1 were asked: "How fast were the cars going when they SMASHED into each other?" (not in caps). Group 2 were asked: "How fast were the cars going when they HIT each other?" and Group 3 were the control group and weren't exposed to any questions. |
| What happened in part 2 of the experiment and what was the point of it? | Par 2 of the experiment took place a week later where participants were asked to return to the lab and asked further questions about the film accident and the critical question that all participants were asked was: "Did you see any broken glass?". There was no broken glass in the film but presumably, those who though the car was travelling faster might expect there to have been broken glass |
| What values were calculated for exp 1? | For exp 1, the mean speed estimate was calculated for each experimental group - the group that were given the word "smashed" estimated the highest speed (40.8mph) and the group given the word "contacted" estimated the lowest speed (31.8mph). |
| What were the estimates for the following words:collided, bumped and hit | The estimated were as follows for the other groups: collided (39.3mph), bumped (38.1mph) and hit (34.0mph). |
| What were these findings attributed to? | These findings were attributed to response-bias factors by L+P. Tis indicates that the form of the question (in this case changing a single word) can influence/bias the witness's answer |
| What were the findings for part 1 of exp 2? | The findings for part 1 of exp 2 were that the participants gave higher speed estimates in the "smashed" condition just like the participants in exp 1. |
| What were the findings for part 2 for the following words: smashed, hit | For part 2, the findings were the following: "smashed" condition - 16 reported seeing broken glass and 34 reported not seeing broken glass, "Hit" condition: 7 reported having seen broken glass and 43 reported not seeing broken glass and in the control condition, 6 reported seeing broken glass and 44 reported not seeing broken glass. |
| What explanation was proposed about the critical word by L+P for these findings? | One explanation that L+P proposed was that memory representation is altered |
| What was the point of the 2nd exp? | The critical word can change a person's memory so their perception of the accident is affected where critical words would lead someone to have a more serious perception of the accident. If this is true, we would expect participants to remember details that weren't true - this was the point of the second exp |
| What happened in the "smashed" condition that makes it appear so severe? | In the "smashed" condition, 2 pieces of info combine to form a memory of an accident that appears quite severe and generates certain expectations (based on existing schemas) - e.g. that there's likely to be broken glass |
| What do the findings of exp 2 suggest about leading Qs? | The findings of exp 2 suggests that the effect of leading Qs are not a result of response-bias factors but leading questions alter the memory a person has for an even |
| How do these findings link to verbal labels? | These findings can be understood in relation to research on the effects of verbal labels on to-be-remembered forms (Carmichael el al 1932). Verbal labels cause a shift in the way info is represented in memory in the direction of being more similar to the verbal label |
| What does the use of a lab exp allow in this study? | They used a lab experiment which allows a causal relationship between the IV (different verbs) and the DV (speed estimates or likelihood of recalling broken glass) as extraneous variables can be controlled (e.g angle/distance of car crash same for all participants). |
| What do the standardised procedures in this exp suggest about replicability and reliability? - give an example.. | due to standardized procedures, there’s high replicability (Loftus and Zanni had similar findings when they did an experiment where they asked participants if they saw “a” broken glass and “the” broken glass with 7% and 17% of participants seeing broken glass respectively) and therefore increasing reliability however it could be argued as 7% and 17% are quite low figures and have quite a weak relationship. |
| What may the mean score be unreliable or invalid? | The mean score was also calculated in experiment 1 but it only had 9 participants so extremes will skew the mean value decreasing validity and reliability of results. |
| How do demand characteristics play a part? | Internal validity is lowered as participants were aware they were in an experiment and may have suspected that they would be questioned about the film clip – demand characteristics play a part. |
| Why does this experiment have low population and ecological validity? | External validity is also low as the sample was small and consisted of all US college students which make it ethnocentric and unrepresentative giving it low population validity. It also has low mundane realism as it was carried out in an artificial lab setting where they observed film clips of car accidents rather than a real accident (in real life, if a car crash was witness participants would’ve been more shaken up and perhaps remembered more of the detail due to emotional response) lowering ecological validity. |
| How were consent and deception an issue in this exp and what justifies the issue in this exp? | Loftus and Palmer did not gain fully informed consent so participants were deceived however they wouldn’t have been able to have valid findings if participants were aware of the aims of the study so in this instance it could be argued that deception was justifiable |
| Was there any harm caused to the participants? | Also participants didn’t undergo much distress as they were only watching film clips and not the real thing and there were no lasting physical, emotional or psychological impacts on the participants. |
| What were the conclusions of Loftus and Zanni's (1975) exp and how does this address a criticism of L+P's exp? | Criticism of L+P's experiment is that judging speed is complex, therefore led easily by leading questions so memory reconstruction was tested by Loftus and Zanni in the following way: showed participants car accident; some asked "did you see A broken headlight" and others asked "did you see THE broken headlight?" over double the % reported seeing the broken glass compared to a broken glass |
| How do Loftus and Zanni's exp support L+P? | provides evidence that leading questions alter response where they can plant memories that were never there. Develops theory that verbal info can alter memory |
| What were Loftus's (1979) findings? | participants shown pictures of man stealing red wallet from bag - 98% able to identify the correct colour, asked leading questions after recall, still persisted the wallet colour was red |
| How do Loftus's (1979) contradict L+P's research? | uggests leading questions have limited memory effect: colour is more difficult to affect a person's memory as less ambiguous whereas speed isn't |
| What did Yullie and Cutshall find? | Interviewed people who had witness an actual armed robbery four months after where two misleading questions were include but they found participants weren’t led by leading questions and their accounts were very similar to initial EWT |
| How are Yullie and Cutshall's exp and improvement over L+P's research and how do their findings contradict L+P's research? | Allows limitation of lab setting in L+P’s study to be overcome and suggests their research is not ecologically valid as the participant’s memories weren’t really subject to distortion after the 4 month period |
| What were Braun et al (2002) findings? | Participants who had visited Disneyland as a child evaluated an advert for it and when asked about having met Bugs Bunny as a child later, 30% of one group said they had and 40% of another also said they had (these groups had been given an ad with bugs bunny on it) – Bugs is not Disney so this was a false memory) |
| How do braun et al's research develop L+P's? | Suggests misinformation doesn’t have to be verbal for it to have an effect on recall. False memories can be established by non-verbal/visual information |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.