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

2. 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

3. 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.

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

5. 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?

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 ?

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. 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.

17. 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)

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

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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?