Sour Nice Candy Honey Pie Toffee Taste Cake Tooth Tart Sugar Pop Bitter Chocolate Good sweet

Mad Wrath Fear Happy Hate Fight Rage Hatred Temper Mean Fury Calm   Wrath Fear Happy Hate Fight   Rage Hatred Temper Mean Fury   Calm Emotion Enrage Annoy angry

Memory in Daily Life (Eye Witness Testimony - EWT) L.O: Able to explain and evidence ‘limitations’ of human memory with reference to eye witness testimony.

“Question two people about the same car crash and you will then question history” ~ Anon

Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction Experiment 1 (of 2) Loftus and Palmer (1974) Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction Experiment 1 (of 2) Method Type of experiment? Experiment design? IV? DV?

Method – Experiment 1 45 student participants were shown short video clips of 2 cars hitting each other as they travelled Split into 5 groups, with 9 participants in each one All of the participants were asked: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they ________ each other’ Each group given a different verb in the blank. These were ‘smashed, collided, bumped, hit or contacted’. The participants had to estimate how fast the cars were traveling Experimental Designs There are different types of experimental design. These are: # Independent Measures Design - Each participant in one group only - Larger sample needed - Larger sample is more likely to be truly representative – But costly and time consuming. # Matched Participants Design – Similar to independent measures in that each participant is in one group only, but here the participants in each group are matched on certain relevant characteristics, e.g. sex, age, IQ, etc… # Repeated Measures Design – Here each participant is in both groups or conditions – means that you need a smaller sample, which would be easier to obtain, but a smaller sample is unlikely to be representative of the population.

Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction Loftus and Palmer (1974) Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction Method Laboratory experiment Independent measures design IV = Verb used DV = The estimate of speed

MEAN ESTIMATE OF SPEED (mph) Results – Experiment 1 When the verb ‘smashed’ was used, participants estimated that the cars were travelling much faster than when the verb ‘contacted’ was used. So how the question was phrased influenced the speed estimates (/ participants’ memory of the video) VERB MEAN ESTIMATE OF SPEED (mph) Smashed 40.8 Collided 39.3 Bumped 38.1 Hit 34.0 Contacted 31.8 What do these results show?

Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction Experiment 2 (of 2) Loftus and Palmer (1974) Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction Experiment 2 (of 2) Method Type of experiment? Experiment design? IV? DV?

Method – Experiment 2 150 student participants shown short film showing a multi-vehicle car accident and then they were asked questions about it. Split into 3 groups (with 50 in each group). One group was asked: ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ The second was asked: ‘... when they smashed into each other?’ Third group was not asked about the speed of the vehicles One week later, all participants returned and were asked: ‘Did you see any broken glass?’ There was no broken glass in the film.

What do these results show? Results – Experiment 2 Did you see any broken glass? Response Smashed Hit Control Yes 16 7 6 No 34 43 44 What do these results show? The results show that the verb used in the original question influenced whether the participants thought they had seen broken glass.

Memory is an active process... Bartlet According to Bartlett (1932) your recall will show a westernised interpretation of this American Indian folk tale thus illustrating your subjective memory construction rather than accurate objective recall of events. We fit information into our all ready existing schema. Schemas are therefore capable of distorting unfamiliar or unconsciously 'unacceptable' information in order to 'fit in' with our existing knowledge or schemas. How might this idea be applied to eyewitness testimony of criminal occurrences ?

Basic Shortcomings of Memory Memory is Selective Much like attention certain aspects or details of an event are more ‘tuned to’ than others (‘note-book not video’) - Loftus (1979): ‘Weapon Focus’ effect Memory is Reconstructive The mind recreates memory based on the “notes” taken at the Encoding stage, and often ‘fills in the gaps’ - Bartlett (1932): The War of the Ghosts - Schema Driven Errors Memory is susceptible to Contamination False memory can be induced during storage & retrieval - Loftus & Zanni (1975) – ‘THE’ Vs ‘A’ broken headlight - Loftus & Palmer– Contacted (31.8mph) Vs Smashed (40.8mph)

Factors affecting EW: Anxiety Christian-son & Hubinette (1993) STUDY DID FOUND IMPLICATION ISSUES / NOTES Hosch & Cooper (1982) Loftus (1979) Weapon’s focus Christian-son & Hubinette (1993)

Factors affecting EW: Anxiety STUDY Experimental METHOD (Laboratory, Field or Natural) Experimental DESIGN (Independent or Repeated Measures) IV & Operationalization DV & Operationalization Hosch & Cooper (1982) Loftus (1979) Weapon’s focus Christian-son & Hubinette (1993)

Memory in Daily Life (Eye Witness Testimony - EWT) L.O: Able to explain and evidence ‘limitations’ of human memory with reference to eye witness testimony.

Basic Shortcomings of Memory Memory is Selective Much like attention certain aspects or details of an event are more ‘tuned to’ than others (‘note-book not video’) - Loftus (1979): ‘Weapon Focus’ effect Memory is Reconstructive The mind recreates memory based on the “notes” taken at the Encoding stage, and often ‘fills in the gaps’ - Bartlett (1932): The War of the Ghosts - Schema Driven Errors Memory is susceptible to Contamination False memory can be induced during storage & retrieval - Loftus & Zanni (1975) – ‘THE’ Vs ‘A’ broken headlight - Loftus & Palmer– Contacted (31.8mph) Vs Smashed (40.8mph)

Cognitive Interviews Fisher & Geiselman (1989) Report everything* Context (mental) reinstatement* Recall in reverse order Recall from changed perspective

Factors affecting EW: Anxiety (I) However, Hosch & Cooper (1982) compared the accuracy Ps could identify a thief from six photographs. The thief was Seen entering the room while Ps were engaged in another task and ‘stole’ the Ps own watch, another persons calculator, or nothing. Accuracy was 71% 67% & 33%. Having something of their own stolen was most stressful for the Ps but was most successfully recalled. Yerkes-Dodson law Performance Low Medium High AROUSAL

Factors affecting EW: Anxiety (II): Weapon’s focus Research suggests that frightening situations may affect recall because attention is diverted e.g. Weapon Focus ... Loftus (1979): Participants exposed to one of 2 situations: Overheard low-key discussion about equipment failure, a person came out from laboratory holding a pen with grease on his hands. Overheard a heated exchange between people in laboratory, after sound of breaking glass and crashing chairs, a man emerged with a bloodstained paper knife. Those who saw the man holding the pen identified the person 49% of the time. Those who saw the man holding the paperknife where only successful 33% of the time.

Factors affecting EW: Anxiety (III) Christianson & Hubinette (1993):  Real life bank robbery witnesses, victims better recall than onlookers They suggest that real incidents with real stress can be accurate detailed and long lasting. They had 110 people who had witnessed between them 22 genuine bank robberies. Some bystanders some directly threatened by robbers The victims who had been subject to greatest anxiety had more accurate recall.

Wrongfully Convicted by an Inaccurate Eyewitness What research method was used? Why was this research method used? What was the IV? What was the DV? What conclusion can we draw from this experiment?