Eyewitness Testimony and Misleading Information

Study Notes

Eyewitness testimony is evidence given in court by a person who saw a crime, aiming to identify the perpetrator.
An eyewitness is someone who has seen or witnessed a crime, typically present at the time of the incident.
Eyewitnesses use their memory of the crime to give testimony or create a "reconstruction" of the event.
Misleading information can significantly affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness Testimony: Evidence from a person who witnessed a crime.
Misleading Information: Incorrect or incomplete details presented about the crime that may alter a witness's memory.
Leading Question: A question phrased in a way that suggests a particular answer.
Post-event Discussion: Conversations after an event, where witnesses discuss what they saw, potentially influencing their memory.

Conducted experiments to study how leading questions affect eyewitness memory recall.
Their research demonstrated significant impacts of the wording of questions on estimations of speed.
Participants exposed to "smashed" had higher speed estimates than those with "hit."
Findings highlighted the influence of leading questions, demonstrating how memory can be altered (distorted) through suggestion.

Investigated the impact of post-event discussion on eyewitness memory accuracy.
The study showed that post-event discussion led to a considerable amount of memory conformity.
Participants were prone to adopting details from others’ accounts. This is called memory contamination.

Questionable ecological validity: The artificial nature of the lab setting may not reflect real-world crime scenes and memory processes.
Lacks population validity: Participants may not represent the diverse population of real-world witnesses, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings.
Highly controlled: The highly controlled environment enabled the isolation of specific variables. The controlled environment allows for greater confidence in causality, establishing that specific manipulations of variable(s), e.g., phrasing, have the effect that was measured.

Questionable ecological validity: The artificial nature of the lab setting may not reflect real-world crime scenes and memory processes.
Good population validity: The large and diverse participant sample increases the generalizability of the findings to a variety of populations.
Unable to conclude why distortion occurs: The study highlights the phenomenon but does not explain the underlying mechanisms of memory distortion.

Illustrative of the potential for wrongful convictions based on inaccurate eyewitness testimony.
Case highlights the fragility of memory and the significant impact of misinformation on recall

Critiques on eyewitness testimony: research findings highlighting the vulnerabilities and susceptibility of eyewitness accounts to error.
Strengths and limitations: This section would encompass the study designs, methodology, and results, alongside the strengths and limitations of memory studies.
Ecological validity, population validity, demand characteristics, and field studies with their relevant examples
Discussion on individual differences, field studies, and ecological validity.