Outline and evaluate research into the effect of misleading information on the eyewitness testimony. The dictionary definition of misleading information is – Any wrong or misleading information given to the insurer, which may affect underwriting decision. Loftus (1975) experimented the effects of misleading information by showing participants a video clip of a car accident then later splitting the group in half. The first group were asked the simple question “How fast was the white sports car going while travelling along the country road?” This was obviously the controlled question. Others were asked the misleading question “How fast was the white car going when it passed the barn while travelling along the country road?” After a week followed all participants were asked “Did you see the barn?” 17% of the participants asked the misleading question claimed they had seen the barn but only 3% of the other participants said that the barn actually existed.
After each film the participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about it. There was one critical. This question was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ One group of participants were given this question. The other five groups were given the verbs smashed, collided, bumped or contacted in place of the word hit. The mean speed estimate was calculated for each group.
When Intel did acknowledge the flaw, they offered to replace Pentium chip for customer that experience the error. Intel stated that chances of the flaw effecting customers would be extremely rare, “once in 27,000 years.” Due to customer complaints about not being able to recreate the error and not able to get a replacement, Intel started to do full replacement on January 17, 1995. Intel handled the Pentium flaw incident initially wrong, but later corrected
Outline and Evaluate research into the effects of age on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. (12marks) A study done by Christianson and Hubinette (1993) found that 58 witnesses who had been threatened during bank robberies has more detailed and accurate recall of events that those not threatened, even after 15 month. However this survey has an ecological validity as it is conducted in a real life sistutaion. This shows that people are likely to remember more if they are threatened because it will increase the anxiety. Also the study of Goodman and Reed (1986) they did a study on children ages between 3-6 years and they played Simon say’s and then 5 days later they were questioned about this event.
Also the universities are guilty for incidents, because they didn’t make as much examination for all safety accidents as now. Furthermore, as the writer claims, fault for those accidents has Department of Homeland Security. They distribute the project devices to universities “with no –safety related requirement”. State feels displeasure for those accidents, and rebook everyone to prevent those accidents that are present everywhere. Since students attend colleges to learn and to educate, colleges should guarantee a safety environment, especially their labs.
This brain structure also explains hypnosis. Hypnosis is all about creating formidable top-down processing that suggestions overcome reality. The Impact of Technology on Hypnosis and Psychology Researchers: Theories Proven and Theories Discounted Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist, studied hypnotism and concluded that 10-15% of adults are highly hypnotizable compared to 80-85% of children. He also concluded that one in five adults are flat out resistant. The rest of the population are in between highly hypnotizable and totally resistant (Winerman, March, 2006).
Conclusion - Age has an effect on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. *Evaluation Methodological strengths -This was a lab experiment and this means there was a high control of variables. This is a good thing as it means it is reliable and if replicated, similar results will be obtained. Methodological weaknesses -This study lacks external validity as it is artificial and will not arouse the participants in the same way that they would have been if they were faced with the same situation in real life. Therefore the finding cannot be used as and indication of what may happen in reality.
Procedure: Forty-five American students formed an opportunity sample. This was a laboratory experiment with five conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant (an independent measures design). Participants were shown slides of a car accident involving a number of cars and asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses. They were then asked specific questions, including the question “About how fast were the cars going when they (hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted ) each other?” Thus, the IV was the wording of the question and the DV was the speed reported by the participants. A week after the participants saw the slides they were asked “Did you see any broken glass?” There was no broken glass shown in the slides.
Our memory in effect shapes our reality and this is the basis of Elizabeth Loftus’ research. In her experiment she selected a random assortment of people and subjected them to footage of a car crash. She then asked a variety of questions relating to the speed of the vehicles before the incident. From this, Loftus concluded that the speed the participant thought the vehicle was going changed depending on the way the question was phrased. For example, when she asked, “how fast was the car going when the two cars smashed?” the participants gave a much higher speed than when the question was phrased, “how fast was the car going when the two cars collided?” This research created a lot of skepticism over the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and since then DNA testing has found a lot of convicted felons to be innocent.
There are ordinary people of society, only with special care needs. One of the most common known drug out there to help in controlling these conditions is Ritalin. Ritalin has had some successful stories, but there are other stories of how people would take their children off the drug due to the side effects and differences they noticed in their children after a long period of time. According to The American Psychological Association, a Dr. Peter Jensen conducted a period of trials on children to see if the medication actually worked and how well it worked. It came back a year later that only 60% of these children that were treated were successful, while the rest failed, but it is stated that this medication is not for everyone and does have severe side effects.