How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

Sabrina Rolbiecki - IB psychology

Group members : Laine Mckinney

Chloey Smith

Word count: 1818

 1

Table of contents
Introduction…………………………………………………...2

Exploration…………………………………………………...4

Design………………………………………………………...4

Procedure…………………………………………………….5

Analysis……………………………………………………....6

Evaluation…………………………………………………....8
 2

Introduction

Eyewitness Testimony is extremely significant,especially when dealing with legal

situations.The jury mistakenly believes eyewitness testimony is absolutely reliable however, little

did they know that the memory of a eye testimony can be altered or distorted by the questions

asked by the prosecutor. S​chema theory​ is a c​ognitive framework or concept that helps

organize and interpret information (Cherry, 2018). Schema theory is a cognitive level in which

the human brain is able to make judgements and without acknowledging it.​ This is extremely

important when being questioned for eye witness, because their Schema could be potentially

affected by the questions they are asked. The study replicated was ‘The Smashing Car

Special’: (Loftus & Palmer 1974) The aim of the study is to show that leading questions could

dissort eyewitness testimony accounts as the account would be distorted by ques within the

question (Loftus & Palmer 1974). Changing the verbs within the question could potentially

dissorts the witness’s answer, since it’s lead by cues within the question. Loftus and Palmers’

methods within the study included asking people to monitor the speed of the motor vehicles in

different forms of questions. Their study was an opportunity sample because they asked 45

american students. ( Loftus & Palmer 1974) Their study was an laboratory experiment with 5

conditions, they had 7 films of traffic accidents ranging from 5-30 seconds to which they were

presented to the group. After the 7 films of traffic accidents were presented to the group, the

group was then asked ‘ about how ​fast​ was the car going when they collided?’ ( Loftus & palmer

1974) Their results for this study were interesting, the estimated speed was affected by the verb

used within the question,and what the verb implied information about the speed which

systematically affected the participants memory when asked “ Smashed” participants than those

who were asked “ hit”. In the end the verb converted an impression of speed traveling which

then altered the participants perception. Eyewitness testimony might be biased ( Loftus &
 3

Palmer 1974) due to the “ Response-bias factor’ which is misleading information provided may

have simply influenced the answer a person gave but didn’t lead to t false memory of the event.

So the memory represented is altered; the critical verb changes a person’s perception of the

accident being more serious. Perception is stored in a person’s memory of the event.

The study that was replicated is based on a schema theory based on that Barlett

suggested that memories can be influenced by the previous knowledge of a person. In this

experiment the participant watching several crashing car films used prior knowledge and the

verbs used within the question to create a answer. The aim of the study was to test if the

language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory. Schema theory has an affect on the

aim of the study, in particular by using previous knowledge of the crashing car films of altering

one’s memory. The Independent Variable ( IV) used in this study will be the verb used within the

question asked, ( crashed, smashed, bumped etc). So the Dependent variable in this study was

the participants perception about how intense the crash is, which in this case would be

measured on a scale of 1-10 meaning 1 the least intense to 10 meaning the most intense. The

hypothesis for the study is : If the question of how the verb is asked then the participants

response from the question will have more remembrance in smashed than hit because of the

schema theory and how the participants used prior knowledge. The Null hypothesis for this

study is : In case of not being able to identify any significance difference between the two

variables within this study, the change in the verb will not create a change within the responses

we receive from the participants within this study.

Since our participants took part in each of the two different conditions, the design used

for this replication was in fact repeated measures. This design was chosen for our study
 4

because it would be easier to interpret how the verb used within the leading question

manipulated the participants answers as to how hard the collusion of the football players were

because the question was the constant and the only things changing were the verbs. The

perception of intensity could imply the effect the verb has. The sampling method chosen for this

experiment was opportunity sampling due to availability of the teachers. The participants were a

Junior class from Ronald Reagan Wilson College Preparatory High School located within

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The reason why opportunity sampling was the sampling method chosen

for this experiment because of their age there was no need for a parent signature for their

consent form. This made it easier because if they were younger there could have been a

problems like irresponsibility if the consent was taken home for a parent signature, therefore it

made collecting the data easier for the group, Throughout the 32 Junior High school participants

there were 13 males and 19 females. All of the participants were the age of 16 years old and

they all attend Ronald Reagan Wilson College Preparatory high school.​School and most of the

student’s first language was english, however those who first language was Spanish understood

and comprehended how to communicate in English. Throughout the replication Ethical

Considerations were closely observed. Consent forms were given to all participants and to

those participants who weren’t of age to sign for themselves needed a parent consent first

before participating. Within the consent form it was made aware that the aim of our experiment

was to test the reliability of eyewitness testimony, also stated within the consent form that each

participant had the right to withdraw from the experiment for whatever reason they desire. It was

also made aware that the participants would receive the results from the experiment when

finished if desired, so the participants all signed with their free will. At the end of the experiment

the students were also given a debriefing to clear up any confusion about the meaning of the

experiment
 5

Materials

● Informed Consent Forms

● Powerpoint ( include 7 Video clips of a collusion of some sort)

○ Make sure the questions are displayed within the powerpoint

● . Raw Data Collection sheet with the numbers 1-10 for students to circle

Before the experiment was conducted, the participants were given a consent form that

was carefully created for this experiment soley, which explained the reasoning behind the

experiment, and that all participants have the right to withdraw from the experiment. There was

also an option for the participants to provide their email so if they wished for their data and the

results from the experiment. The consent forms were to be turned in signed by the participants

to the experimenters. Once consent forms collected, the expiremeners then passed out the

sheet for the raw data, then explained the nature of the video and the instructions regarding the

raw data collection. It was made aware to the participants that the sheet should correlate with

one of the five conditions given. Each of the five conditions consisted showing all 32 participants

a 5 second clip three times in a row and having them answer the leading question ​“On a scale

of 1-10, how hard was the impact when the players (smashed / collided / bumped / hit /

contacted) each other?” The experimenters treated the experiment environment as a testing

environment. Participants were asked to remain silent and focus on their own sheets when

answering the leading questions on their raw data sheets. This was repeated 5 times all

together for each condition. After the presentation was done the data sheets were then collected

back by the experimenters, and a debriefing went on, and they explained what the data meant.
 6

Mean Perception of Impact (1-10) Dispersion (Standard Deviation)

Condition One “Smashed” 8.31 1.19

Condition Two “Contacted” 7.12 1.41

The form of data collected was ordinal, to have ordinal data it means to have any data between

1 and whatever number is desired. In the this replication the ordinal data is set on a scale of

1-10, Which is the same way the participants ranked the intensity of the collusion. The measure

of central tendency for the data collected would be the mean since it best represents the effect

of the leading question on each participants as a whole. For example it wouldn't make sense if
 7

the central tendency for the data used was mode because it would focus on the most common

occurring data point than every answer. Neither would the median make sense because it only

focuses on the middle set of information and not the overall. For the experiment standard

deviation was used to measure the distribution of data.

The dependent variable was measured throughout the experiment by the participant’s

perception of how hard the collusion of the football tackles were on a scale of 1-10. The data

displays that the first condition which used the verb “smashed” in the leading question produced

a higher impact according to the students. The mean of the responses from the participants

when using the verb “smashed” was 8.31 out of 10 , the standard deviation for “ Smashed” was

1.19. Our second condition was the verb “ contacted” in the leading question and the mean for

the responses was a 7.12 out of 10 with a standard deviation of 1.41. The data supports the

hypothesis that using the verb “smashed” in the leading question for the participants would

result in the highest perception of intensity of the impact of the football tackle.

Not every experiment is perfect, however with a few modifications there could be many

improvements to reach to that certain point. There were a lot of strengths within the experiment

such as our design, sample and procedure. The design was a repeated measure, which means

the participant is being put through multiple conditions. It was a strength because we could

easily spot the difference between the many different perception with the change of the verb in

the leading question. Our sample was also a strength because it was an opportunity sample,

however, it was also an limitation because it is not a full representation of everyone in the united

states, and the verbs in the leading question might have a different effect on the students in

another state such as california as there are many different factors that goes into the different
 8

perceptions. Our procedure was another strength because we were able to complete the

powerpoint and collect all the data properly. However, there could’ve been some experimenter

influence towards the participants because when the experimenters were reading the

powerpoint the experimenter made emphasis on the verb, which could have lead the

participants to choose a higher intensity for the impact. A modification that could be done for the

next replication of this experiment could be to not make emphasis of the verb or make sure that

the powerpoint includes the questions and just have the participants read the question quietly in

their heads. Another limitation to the study was that the math was done incorrectly,when double

checking it was made aware that the math was done incorrectly, the experimenters were off 14

points. Although the experiment wasn’t perfect it was pretty standard due to the fact that the

experimenters did not derive as much from the original study from loftus and palmer (1974).
 9

Appendices

Appendix i : Informed Consent Form.

Dear Student,

We are conducting an experiment as part of our internal assessment for our IB Psychology
class. For this experiment we will be investigating eyewitness testimony and would appreciate
your participation.

If you agree to participate in this experiment, you should know that:

● All collected data will be confidential and anonymous

● You have the right to withdraw from participating at any time
● You will receive background information about this experiment as well as our results if
you so choose.

If you wish to receive the obtained results, please give your email below:

This experiment will take 10 minutes to complete. If you would like to participate, please fill in
the following information that is relevant to our experiment, as well as sign below.

Gender: _______________ Age: _______________

 10

I, ___________________________, understand the nature of this experiment and agree to

participate voluntarily. I give the researchers permission to use my data as part of their
experimental study.

Student Signature: ___________________________ Date: _____________

Parent Signature: ____________________________ Date: _____________

Appendix ii : directions
● First print out an informed consent form and ask for permission to procedure with the
study
● Once given permission make sure to make a powerpoint. The PowerPoint must include
the following : - 2 different video clips consisting of 5 seconds and the questions with the
different verbs
● Make a sheet where the participants can rate the collision on a scale of (1-10) ordinal
data
● Then present to your participants & make sure they have their sheets that they can rate
from (1-10)
● Collect your data back

Appendix III :
● Informed Consent Forms

● Powerpoint ( include 7 Video clips of a collusion of some sort)

○ Make sure the questions are displayed within the powerpoint

 11

● . Raw Data Collection sheet with the numbers 1-10 for students to circle

Appendix IV: briefing notes

● Our underlying motive throughout this study was to study the impact different verbs used
within leading questions had upon the participants .
● The common result that Lofter & Palmer (1974) found was that the condition with the
word “smash” was rated higher speed of collusion compared to “ bumped”
● If they desire their information to give the experimenters the info

Appendix V: Raw Data

Participant # Condition 1: “smashed” Condition 2: “contacted”

1 8 10

2 10 9

3 8 8

4 7 7

5 10 9

6 8 7

7 7 8

8 9 8

9 7 8

10 10 7

11 9 7

12 8 6

13 9 7

14 8 6

15 8 5
 12

16 9 9

17 9 7

18 8 7

19 9 6

20 7 6

21 7 6

22 9 7

23 9 6

24 10 7

25 9 6

26 7 8

27 6 9

28 7 5

29 7 5

30 8 6

31 10 8

32 9 8
 13

Appendix VI : Calculations of inferential statistics