Psychology Report

EWT Field Study

STRUCTURE TEMPLATE

Abstract

Eyewitness testimony is a recollection of an event by people who witnessed

it. The aim of the present study was to answer the research question and

support the hypothesis of whether accuracy of eyewitness testimony recall is

affected by duration of exposure. An experimental between-groups design

was employed. Two groups of 10 participants were exposed to the

confederate. The gathered date was analysed using an independent t-test (2

tail; alpha = 0.05). The hypothesis, which stated that there will be a difference, for

the participants, on their recall accuracy of their interaction with the

confederate, based on their duration of the exposure to the confederate

(short/long duration), was supported by the current study (t = 2.414, df = 18,

p < 0.027). The result was discussed in terms of previous studies conducted.

A limitation of the present study was the potential of verbal suggestion and

social influence affecting the eyewitness testimony. A strength of the present

study….. For future research, exploring the accuracy of details recalled when

faced with a perpetrator with distinct facial features as well as introducing a

virtual environment for the eyewitness testimony interview, would provide

interesting results.

1
 Introduction

Eyewitness testimony plays a critical role in the justice system, frequently

relied on in court and used in several other fields such as law, forensics and
psychology. To briefly define, eyewitness testimony is an account constructed
from the recollection of events by a person present at the time of the event
or crime. However, the reliability of eyewitness testimonies has been
scrutinised due to the prevalence of identification errors. The importance of
receiving an accurate eyewitness testimony means researching what affects
an eyewitness testimony and in which ways the accuracy of eyewitness
testimonies can be improved is crucial.

The present study aims to analyse how the duration of exposure affects the
eyewitness’ recall accuracy. In a study conducted by Memon, Hope and Bull
(2003), it was concluded that longer exposure duration showed a significant
boost on the accuracy of the testimonies. Palmer, Brewer, Weber, and
Nagesh (2013) conducted a study on whether the confidence-accuracy
relationship for eyewitness testimony is affected by exposure duration,
retention interval and divided attention. According to a study by Gustafsson,
Lindholm and Jönsson (2019), eyewitnesses found it harder to recall incorrect
information about a simulated crime event. The eyewitness were visibly
quicker and more confident when providing correct information, whereas
when giving incorrect information they would show more “effort cues” such
as “delays (pauses between or within statements), hedges, that is,
commitment avoidance (e.g., “I think,” “maybe”), as well as word fillers (e.g.,
“well”) and non-word fillers (i.e., expressions without clear meaning, e.g.,
“uhm”)” (Gustafsson et al., 2019, p. 3). A study by Wilson and French (2014)
explored the impact of verbal suggestion, social influence and paranormal
belief on eyewitness testimony for a simulated paranormal event. A mild

2
verbal suggestion swayed a substantial amount of witnesses into reporting
incorrect information. Taylor and Dando (2018) looked into innovating the
process of interviewing eyewitnesses with the use of a virtual environment.
The results were that eyewitnesses found it easier to admit not remembering
certain event information when in the virtual environment and speaking to an
avatar, they also reported finding the avatar easier to talk to. A study done
by Murphy and Greene (2016), was the first to assess perceptual load, "i.e.,
the amount of information involved in processing task-relevant stimuli”
(Taylor et al., 2018, p. 1), in relation to eyewitness testimony accuracy. The
findings showed that under a high load, eyewitnesses would provide less
accurate answers, they were also found to be more susceptible to leading
questions from the interviewer. A study by Jones, Carlson, Lockamyeir,
Hemby, Carlson and Wooten (2020) sheds light on the lack of eyewitness
identification studies that involve a stooge perpetrator with distinctive facial
features. Their study explored what effect a perpetrator with a distinct facial
feature would have on face processing. The study results supported that
distinct features on the perpetrator would negatively impact face processing,
thereby reducing discriminability, as well as supporting that low confidence
identifications were associated with incorrect identification. In a field study by
Sauerland, Broers and Oorsouw (2018) the effect of alcohol on eyewitness
identification, confidence, and decision times was tested. The study showed
that eyewitnesses with a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.06% displayed
poor calibration, signs of overconfidence as well as lower identification
accuracy.

Taking into account the expansive research on the reliability of eyewitness

testimonies, it can be concluded that this is an expansive subject full of
untapped information and room for innovation. None of the studies
mentioned above include a field study focusing on the details of the
perpetrator, they focus on identification (i.e. identifying a perpetrator from a
simultaneous and sequential line-up) rather than the recall of details. The
current study aims to contribute and fill gaps within this area of study by
exploring the relationship between duration of exposure (long/short) and the
eyewitness’ ability to recall details about the confederate. Using this

3
research, this study aims to answer the research question stated below as
well as support the hypothesis stated below. In a future study, the current
study can be improved on by taking into consideration retention interval.

Research Question:

Will there be a difference for the participants, on their recall accuracy of their
interaction with the confederate, based on the duration of exposure to the
confederate?

Hypothesis:

There will be a difference for the participants, on their recall accuracy of their
interaction with the confederate, based on the duration of exposure to the
confederate (short/long duration).

Method

Design

A between-groups design was implemented for the present study. The design
of the present study utilised the participants recall scores as a dependant
variable and the duration of exposure as an independent variable.

Participants

4
Participants were sampled using convenience sampling. 20 participants were
randomly selected among students and faculty located at the campus of the
Institute of Art and Design in Dun Laoghaire.

Materials

The materials used in the present study can all be found in the Appendices
section of this report. The materials used in the study consisted of an
Information sheet (see Appendix A), a detailed consent form (see Appendix
B), the recall questions and bogus survey questions (see Appendix C), a
debrief document (see Appendix D), the raw data (see Appendix E), the hand
calculations including the Independent T-test, the short and long duration
mean and standard deviation (see Appendix F), the Independent T-test SPSS
printout (see Appendix G).

The information sheet provided participants with details on the purpose of

the research study. Additionally, the sheet informed participants that they
can decline participation in the study, as well as what they would be asked to
do upon agreeing to take part, who would have access to any information
they agree to give out and what would happen with the results of the study.
The consent form was provided to participants to fill out, it contained 5
statements the participant had to agree to for there to be informed consent.
The recall questions were asked to collect the participants recall accuracy
score. The bogus survey questions were used to create a longer duration of
exposure to the confederate. A debrief document was handed out after the
study was concluded, to thank the participant and to provide them with any
additional information or resources they wish to know about the study. The
raw data recorded all individual recall accuracy scores of the 20 participants.
The hand calculations as well as the SPSS printout provided the statistical
calculations for the present study.

5
Procedure

The participant was approached by the confederate as the researcher waited,

hidden from plain sight of the participant. The confederate then proceeded to
either quickly ask for the time (short duration exposure) or ask the bogus
survey questions (long duration exposure). Afterwards, the confederate left
the participants sight, and the researcher approached the participant. The
participant was then handed the information sheet and 2 consent forms, both
to be filled in by the participant, one to be given to the researcher and one
for the participant to keep. After the participant was informed about the
study and provided their informed consent, the researcher asked the
participant the 8 recall questions. The recall accuracy scores were noted
down by the researcher as the participant answered. The researcher then
handed the participant the debrief document and talked them through it.
Finally, the researcher thanked the participant for their time and contribution
to the study.

Results

The independent variable for this experiment on eyewitness testimony was:

(i) Duration of exposure to the confederate (short / long duration)

The dependent variable for this experiment was:

(i) Participants’ recall accuracy (scores) of the interaction with the

confederate

Descriptive Statistics:

6
The data collected for the analysis is summarised in Table 1 below. The n
values, mean, and standard deviation for each group (i.e., the Long and Short
Duration of Exposure conditions) are presented.

Table 1: Summary of the data for long/ short duration of exposure groups:

Group n Mean Standard

Long duration of exposure 10 7 1.054
Short duration of exposure 10 5.7 1.337

The recall scores of the participants are represented below in Figure 1. The
orange line representing scores from the long duration exposure participants.
The yellow line representing scores of participants with short duration
exposure to the confederate.

Figure 1: Line graph showing recall scores of 20 participants based on long/

short duration of exposure:

5
Recall scores

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Participants

Long Duration Exposure Short Duration Exposure

Inferential Statistics

7
The Hypothesis stated there would be a difference for the participants, on
their recall accuracy of their interaction with the confederate, based on the
duration of exposure to the confederate (short/long duration). In order to test
this hypothesis, an independent t-test was completed (2 tail; alpha = 0.05).
The Hypothesis was supported (t = 2.414, df = 18, p < 0.027).

Discussion

The current study supported the hypothesis; there will be a difference for the
participants, on their recall accuracy of their interaction with the confederate,
based on the duration of exposure to the confederate (short/long duration).
Thus, the results of this study agree with those of the study by Memon, Hope
and Bull (2003), where it was concluded that longer exposure duration
boosted eyewitness accuracy. The current study could have benefitted from
considering the confidence-accuracy relationship of eyewitness testimonies
as was discussed in the study done by Palmer, Brewer, Weber, and Nagesh
(2013). It would be worth combining the research of the current study and
the study conducted by Jones, Carlson, Lockamyeir, Hemby, Carlson and
Wooten (2020), by exploring the accuracy of details recalled when faced with
a perpetrator with distinct facial features. One of the limitations of the
current study was the potential of verbal suggestion and social influence, as
mentioned in the study conducted by Wilson and French (2014), a mild verbal
suggestion could sway an eyewitness’ answer. During the current study,
some of the participants which were approached were not alone and therefor
a second party suggesting an answer could at times not be avoided. It would
be interesting to observe in a future study whether if provided with verbal
suggestion and social influence, an eyewitness would conform their
testimony over a longer retention interval. Another possible improvement
upon the current study could be the use of a virtual environment as used by

8
Taylor and Dando (2018) in their innovative study on the use of avatars in
virtual environments for eyewitness interviews. The use of an avatar could
help reduce stress for the eyewitness, allowing them to more easily admit not
remembering particular event information. The current study could also
improve with the inclusion of “effort cues” as a means to measure the level
confidence of the eyewitness during the identification process, as was
implemented in the study by Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson (2019),
introducing an exploration of confidence-accuracy relationship into the study.
A particular weakness of the current study was the lack of knowledge of the
level of intoxication of the participant, as found in the study by Sauerland,
Broers and Oorsouw (2018), an eyewitness with a blood alcohol concentration
of over 0.06% displayed poor calibration and signs of overconfidence. The
effect of alcohol on an eyewitness could significantly affect the research
within the current study, allowing for a higher amount of outliers to appear
within the data collected.

The discussed research on the topic of eyewitness testimony with a focus on

duration of exposure is vast and allows for the assumption of promising
future studies full of improvement and development upon previous studies.
Further research in this area can be significant for the justice system,
allowing for a more fair and just system to be in place. Therefore, it is
significant to continue to explore and broaden this research topic in future
studies.

References

Gustafsson, P. U., Lindholm, T., & Jönsson, F. U. (2019). Predicting Accuracy in

Eyewitness Testimonies With Memory Retrieval Effort and
Confidence. Frontiers in Psychology. 10(703).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00703

9
Jones, A. R., Carlson, C. A., Lockamyeir, R. F., Hemby, J. A., Carlson, M. A., &
Wooten, A. R. (2020). “All I remember is the black eye”: A distinctive
facial feature harms eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 34(6), 1379–1393. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3714
Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on
eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology,
94(3), 339–354.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.iadt.ie/10.1348/000712603767876262

Murphy, G., & Greene, C. M. (2016). Perceptual Load Affects Eyewitness

Accuracy and Susceptibility to Leading Questions. Frontiers in
Psychology. 7(1322). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01322

Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Nagesh, A. (2013). The confidence-
accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of
exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(1), 55–71. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.iadt.ie/10.1037/a0031602

Sauerland, M., Broers, N. J., & Oorsouw, K. (2018). Two field studies on the
effects of alcohol on eyewitness identification, confidence, and decision
times. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 370–385.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3493

Taylor, D. A., & Dando, C. J. (2018). Eyewitness Memory in Face-to-Face and

Immersive Avatar-to-Avatar Contexts. Frontiers in Psychology. 9(507).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00507

Wilson, K., & French, C. C. (2014). Magic and memory: using conjuring to
explore the effects of suggestion, social influence, and paranormal belief on
eyewitness testimony for an ostensibly paranormal event. Frontiers in
Psychology. 5(1289). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01289

10
 Appendices

Appendix A – Information Sheet (Participant Brief)

Information Sheet

Study Title: A Field Study on Eyewitness Reporting

Purpose of the Research Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate one of the factors thought to affect
the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies in real world environments.

Invitation
You are being invited to consider taking part in this research study on
eyewitness testimony. This study is being undertaken by Morgan Lynch and
Max Kurevlev.

Before you decide whether or not you wish to take part, it is important for
you to understand why this research is being done and what it will involve.
Please take some time to read this information carefully before making your
decision to participate, or not. Please do ask the researcher if there is
anything that is unclear, or if you would like more information on the study
before making your decision to participate in it.

Do I have to take part?

You are free to decide whether you wish to take part or not. If you do decide
to take part you will be asked to tick a box on two consent forms indicating
that you consent to participating in the study. One copy of the form is for you
to keep and the other is for the researchers’ records. You are free to
withdraw from this study at any time and without giving reasons. Please note,

11
choosing to either take part or not take part in the study will have no impact
on your job / marks / assessments or future here in IADT.

If I take part, what do I have to do?

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked 8 questions about the
individual you just spoke to. The time taken to answer the 8 questions should
take no more than 5 minutes of your time.

What are the benefits (if any) of taking part?

By taking part, you will be helping some IADT Applied Psychology students
complete their CA for their Research Methods and Statistics Year 1 module.
You may also benefit by talking to the researchers about eyewitness
testimony after the data collection and hearing what variables are thought to
affect participants’ recall of events they witness.

What are the disadvantages and risks (if any) of taking part?
The disadvantages to taking part in this study are:
1. The time you will be asked to give up to answer the 8 questions on the
individual you spoke with.
2. As this study involves identifying people, there is a possibility that
participation in this study may remind you of an unpleasant
situation/event you previously experienced, which may alter your
current mood.

How will information about me be used?

The data collected will be added to a data set and statistically analysed in
order to answer a research question. The data collected may also be retained
for use in future research studies.

12
Who will have access to information about me?
Your confidentiality will be safeguarded both during and after the study is
complete. This will be achieved by making sure that:

 At no point, will any identifiable information be collected from you.

 That data is stored securely in a locked office, and in soft copy on a
password protected computer.
 All data will be coded so that it is not linked to you individually, thus
ensuring your anonymity.
 The data will be retained by the researcher for at least one year. If the
research is to be published, most scientific journals require original
data to be kept for 5 years. If it is not to be published then the data will
be kept for just the 1 year.
 The data will be securely disposed of, through the shredding of paper
copies and deleting of any soft copies of the computerised data sets,
after 1 year/5 years.

What will happen to the results of the study?

The results of the research study will be used to complete a CA for our
Research Methods and Statistics Year 1 module. They will be published in this
CA research report in the results section, and will be discussed in the
Discussion section of the report. If you wish to receive a copy of the results
you may contact the researchers using the contact details on the debriefing
document, which will be provided to you upon completion of your
participation in the study.
Who has reviewed the study?
This study has been approved by our research supervisor, and lecturer, for
this assignment, Dr Olivia Hurley (who has designed it to meet the
requirements and guidelines set down by the IADT Department of Technology
and Psychology Ethics Committee for research studies completed by IADT
Applied Psychology students).

What if there is a problem?

13
If you have a concern about any aspect of this study, you may wish to speak
to the researchers who will do their best to answer your questions. You
should contact Morgan Lynch and Max Kurevlev, or our research supervisor,
Dr. Olivia Hurley from the Department of Technology and Psychology here in
IADT (see details below).

Contact for further information

Morgan Lynch ([email protected])
Max Kurevlev ([email protected])
Dr. Olivia Hurley ([email protected])

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to read this information sheet.

Date 4 November 2021

14
 Appendix B – Consent Form

CONSENT FORM

Title of Project: A Field Study on Eyewitness Reporting

Name of Researchers: Morgan Lynch, Max Kurevlev

Please tick box

1 I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet for the □
above study and have had the opportunity to ask questions.

2 I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to □

withdraw at any time.

3 I agree to take part in this study. □

4 I understand that the data collected during this study will be kept □
anonymous at all times.

5 I agree to allow the data collected to be used for future research projects. □

15
 __________________
(Tick to agree to participate Date
in this study)

Max Kurevlev
______________________ _________________ ___________________
Researcher 1 Date Signature

Morgan Lynch
_______________________ _________________ ___________________
Researcher 2 Date Signature

16
 Appendix C – Recall Questions (8)

& Bogus Survey Questions (3; Library Use)

Questions to ask participants for your field study of eyewitness

testimony

You will need to know the answers to these 8 questions below (for your
research confederate), in order to score your participants’ responses (short
duration exposure and long duration exposure). You should make sure the
questions asked, and the types of answers you receive for them, are the
same for both conditions (i.e., the long / short duration of exposure to the
confederate).

Researcher: “The following 8 questions refer to the person you just met.
Could you please answer them, based on your recollection of that person?
Question 1: ……”

17
 Yes No Point
s
1 Was her/his hair longer than shoulder length?
2 Was she/he taller than me? (the researcher)
3 Was she/he wearing a hat/hood?
4 Was she/he wearing glasses?
5 Did she/he have any visible piercings or tattoos?
6 Was she/he carrying a bag?
7 Was she/he wearing a scarf?
8 Did she/he say ‘thank you’ to you at the end of the
interaction?
Total

Confederate: Bogus Questionnaire

Remember, the answers to the bogus questions below are not very
important. They are simply to let the participant spend more time with the
confederate. Nevertheless, they should be believable, and you should note
their answers, as if the data was going to be used in the future.

Bogus Questions:
1. How often do you physically visit the library in IADT (not
remotely/online)?

2. What is the one main reason you visit the IADT library? e.g., to study, to
find resources such as books etc.

3. Have you taken out any books from the library in the past week?

18
 Appendix D – Debrief

Debrief
Thank you very much for taking part in this research study

The study in which you just participated was designed to investigate one of
the factors thought to affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies in real
world environments.

If you have questions about this study, or you wish to have your data
removed from the study, please contact the researchers’ named here at the
following e-mail address: Max Kurevlev ([email protected]), Morgan Lynch
([email protected]). Alternatively, you may contact our lecturer and

19
research supervisor for this study, Dr. Olivia Hurley ([email protected]),
from the Department of Technology and Psychology, here in IADT.

We thank you sincerely for contributing to this study and assure you that
your data will be kept confidential and anonymous. If published, the data will
not be in any way identifiable as yours.

If you have been affected by the content of this study in any way or wish to
learn more about eyewitness testimony, the resources below may be of
assistance/interest to you:

1. Eyewitness Testimony research, SimplyPsychology:

www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony/

2. Eyewitness Testimony research, APS:

www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-
best-kind-of-evidence/

3. Student Support Services, IADT:

www.iadt.ie/en/CurrentStudents/StudentServices/

Morgan Lynch _______________

Max Kurevlev _______________

Date: 4 November 2021

Appendix E: Raw Data

CA: Eyewitness Experiment – RAW DATA

Participant Number (Data: gender + exposure Recall Accuracy

condition) Score

20
1 (Female; Long Duration Exposure) 7
2 (Female; Long Duration Exposure) 8
3 (Female; Long Duration Exposure) 6
4 (Female; Long Duration Exposure) 8
5 (Female; Long Duration Exposure) 8
6 (Male; Long Duration Exposure) 7
7 (Male; Long Duration Exposure) 8
8 (Male; Long Duration Exposure) 7
9 (Male; Long Duration Exposure) 5
10 (Female; Long Duration Exposure) 6

11 (Male; Short Duration Exposure) 5

12 (Male; Short Duration Exposure) 5
13 (Male; Short Duration Exposure) 4
14 (Male; Short Duration Exposure) 5
15 (Male; Short Duration Exposure) 6
16 (Female; Short Duration Exposure) 5
17 (Female; Short Duration Exposure) 5
18 (Female; Short Duration Exposure) 6
19 (Female; Short Duration Exposure) 8
20 (Male; Short Duration Exposure) 8

21
 Appendix F: Independent T-Test Hand Calculations

7+8+6 +8+8+7 +8+7+5+ 6

x1 = = 7.0
10

x 1 = 7.0

5+5+4 +5+6+ 5+5+6+8+ 8

x2 = = 5.7
10

x 2 = 5.7

∑ x 1=70 ∑ x 2=57

( ∑ X 1 ) =4,900 ( ∑ X 2 ) =3,249
2 2

∑ X 21=500 ∑ X 22=341

n1=10 n2 =10

22
 S 2
¿
[ 500 −¿
4,900
10 ] [
+¿ 341 −¿
3,249
10 ]
10+ 10−2

S2 = 1.45

Sx 1 −¿ x 2
√
= 1.45
( 101 +¿
1
10 )
Sx
1 −¿ x 2
= 0.539

7 −¿5.7
tobs = = 2.414
0.539

Appendix G: Independent T-Test SPSS Double-Check Printout

23
24