32:I[196793,["/_next/static/chunks/1bvjymkcthwj_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/10rmxw_yiwj40.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1g1suj21ijg7y.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ajn-eeo6x050.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2oijhb0tdir9b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kxd2t9_7z5v9.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w85_h15j00vy.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3hk191jki_10r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w79pfpnwh2xj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3rgu7kqb5jfh5.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3qbnz8dpkh9p0.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1xcu6jc442bl4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2zts3qwotnhdc.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1q4qdybom7cx2.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1hnuhh5t7cfaj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969"],"Gingerbread"] 34:I[647935,["/_next/static/chunks/1bvjymkcthwj_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/10rmxw_yiwj40.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1g1suj21ijg7y.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ajn-eeo6x050.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2oijhb0tdir9b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kxd2t9_7z5v9.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w85_h15j00vy.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3hk191jki_10r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w79pfpnwh2xj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3rgu7kqb5jfh5.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3qbnz8dpkh9p0.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1xcu6jc442bl4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2zts3qwotnhdc.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1q4qdybom7cx2.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1hnuhh5t7cfaj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969"],"RecordResourceResume"] 35:I[830476,["/_next/static/chunks/1bvjymkcthwj_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/10rmxw_yiwj40.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1g1suj21ijg7y.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ajn-eeo6x050.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2oijhb0tdir9b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kxd2t9_7z5v9.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w85_h15j00vy.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3hk191jki_10r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w79pfpnwh2xj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3rgu7kqb5jfh5.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3qbnz8dpkh9p0.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1xcu6jc442bl4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2zts3qwotnhdc.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1q4qdybom7cx2.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1hnuhh5t7cfaj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969"],"FlashcardAccessBranch"] 36:I[315438,["/_next/static/chunks/1bvjymkcthwj_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/10rmxw_yiwj40.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1g1suj21ijg7y.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ajn-eeo6x050.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2oijhb0tdir9b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3kxd2t9_7z5v9.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w85_h15j00vy.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3hk191jki_10r.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3w79pfpnwh2xj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3rgu7kqb5jfh5.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3qbnz8dpkh9p0.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1xcu6jc442bl4.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/2zts3qwotnhdc.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1q4qdybom7cx2.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1hnuhh5t7cfaj.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791451969"],"TopicFlashcardRunner"] 24:[["$","$L32",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L33",["$","$L34",null,{"href":"/a-level/psychology/aqa/eyewitness-testimony/flashcards","label":"Eyewitness testimony","subjectCode":"a_level_psychology__aqa","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L35",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L36",null,{"decks":[{"id":"52fcff7f-371d-4111-91d6-92151ff64e36","title":"Eyewitness testimony Flashcards","topicId":"fba14440-500e-5e9b-a657-6ef9925bb0cd","topicSlug":"eyewitness-testimony","cards":[{"id":"7a5e44e0-fdd8-46c5-bcc9-af4d0c9d36a2","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Eyewitness testimony is remembering details of events such as crimes or accidents that the witness has [ ].","back":"Eyewitness testimony is remembering details of events such as crimes or accidents that the witness has personally observed.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"personally observed","correct":true,"explanation":"Eyewitness testimony concerns a witness’s recollection of an event they directly saw or experienced, such as a crime or accident, rather than information obtained from another source."},{"text":"heard about afterwards","correct":false,"explanation":"Hearing about an event afterwards is second-hand information, not eyewitness testimony. The correct term is “personally observed” because the witness must have directly experienced the event."},{"text":"been told about","correct":false,"explanation":"Being told about an event does not make someone an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony involves details of an event that the witness has “personally observed”."},{"text":"read about online","correct":false,"explanation":"Reading an account online provides second-hand knowledge rather than an eyewitness memory. The correct term is “personally observed” because the witness directly encountered the event."}]},{"id":"fb81a4ac-b81f-47b7-8ad6-3616c9813d70","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"A leading question suggests the [ ] through its form or content.","back":"A leading question suggests the desired answer through its form or content.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"desired answer","correct":true,"explanation":"A leading question is worded so that it points the respondent towards the answer wanted or expected by the questioner, rather than remaining neutral."},{"text":"accurate answer","correct":false,"explanation":"Leading questions do not necessarily guide witnesses towards accuracy. They suggest the “desired answer”, which may distort the response by communicating what the questioner expects."},{"text":"witness’s memory","correct":false,"explanation":"The question’s wording may affect the witness’s memory or response, but what it directly suggests is the “desired answer” expected by the questioner."},{"text":"questioner’s identity","correct":false,"explanation":"A leading question may reveal the questioner’s expectations, but it does not suggest their identity. It suggests the “desired answer” through its wording or content."}]},{"id":"25f49ebd-5315-4483-8eb9-74ee4dbb22a7","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"In Loftus and Palmer’s car crash study, what was the key wording manipulation?","back":"The verb in the speed question.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The verb in the speed question.","correct":true,"explanation":"Loftus and Palmer changed the verb describing the collision, using words such as “smashed”, “hit” and “contacted”, then measured their effect on estimated speed."},{"text":"The adjective in the speed question.","correct":false,"explanation":"The manipulation did not involve an adjective. Loftus and Palmer varied the verb describing the collision, such as “smashed” or “contacted”, to test its effect on speed estimates."},{"text":"The number in the speed question.","correct":false,"explanation":"No numerical value was inserted into the question to influence participants. The researchers manipulated the verb used to describe how the vehicles collided."},{"text":"The speaker asking the speed question.","correct":false,"explanation":"Changing the person asking the question was not the independent variable. Loftus and Palmer manipulated the verb in the speed question while comparing participants’ estimates."}]},{"id":"2511b169-d129-400f-9cb4-7977fe6b0929","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"In Loftus and Palmer, [ ] produced the highest estimate at 40.5 mph; [ ] produced the lowest at 31.8 mph.","back":"In Loftus and Palmer, smashed produced the highest estimate at 40.5 mph; contacted produced the lowest at 31.8 mph.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"In Loftus and Palmer, smashed produced the highest estimate at 40.5 mph; contacted produced the lowest at 31.8 mph.","correct":true,"explanation":"“Smashed” implied the most severe collision and produced the highest mean speed estimate, while “contacted” implied the mildest collision and produced the lowest."},{"text":"In Loftus and Palmer, hit produced the highest estimate at 40.5 mph; contacted produced the lowest at 31.8 mph.","correct":false,"explanation":"“Hit” produced an intermediate estimate rather than the highest one. The highest estimate, 40.5 mph, followed “smashed”, while “contacted” produced the lowest."},{"text":"In Loftus and Palmer, smashed produced the highest estimate at 40.5 mph; hit produced the lowest at 31.8 mph.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although “smashed” correctly produced the highest estimate, “hit” did not produce the lowest. “Contacted” generated the lowest mean estimate of 31.8 mph."},{"text":"In Loftus and Palmer, contacted produced the highest estimate at 40.5 mph; smashed produced the lowest at 31.8 mph.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the relationship between verb intensity and estimated speed. “Smashed” produced the highest estimate of 40.5 mph, whereas “contacted” produced the lowest at 31.8 mph."}]},{"id":"3bfbb9e4-7747-4de5-ac9b-f0a55418c98f","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"According to the response-bias explanation, how do leading questions affect EWT?","back":"They influence the witness’s answer, not the memory itself.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They influence the witness’s answer, not the memory itself.","correct":true,"explanation":"The response-bias explanation argues that wording changes how a witness chooses to respond, perhaps by indicating the expected answer, while the original memory remains unchanged."},{"text":"They influence the witness’s memory, not the answer itself.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the response-bias account. Response bias proposes that leading wording changes the witness’s answer to match expectations, without altering the underlying memory."},{"text":"They improve the witness’s accuracy, not the memory itself.","correct":false,"explanation":"Leading questions can bias responses rather than improve accuracy. According to response bias, they influence the witness’s answer while leaving the stored memory itself unchanged."},{"text":"They influence the witness’s attention, not the memory itself.","correct":false,"explanation":"Attention operates mainly while the event is being witnessed, whereas leading questions are asked afterwards. Response bias states that they influence the witness’s answer, not the memory itself."}]},{"id":"d2bbbfd9-40ab-4483-9fe5-cd599ee1ef00","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What follow-up evidence supported the substitution explanation in Loftus and Palmer?","back":"The smashed group more often reported non-existent broken glass.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The smashed group more often reported non-existent broken glass.","correct":true,"explanation":"There was no broken glass in the film, yet participants previously given “smashed” reported it more often. This suggests the wording became incorporated into their memory."},{"text":"The contacted group more often reported non-existent broken glass.","correct":false,"explanation":"“Contacted” was the mildest collision verb and did not produce the strongest false-memory effect. The “smashed” group most often reported seeing non-existent broken glass."},{"text":"The smashed group more often correctly recalled existing broken glass.","correct":false,"explanation":"No broken glass appeared in the original film, so reports of it could not be accurate recall. The “smashed” group more often reported non-existent broken glass."},{"text":"The smashed group gave lower estimates and reported no broken glass.","correct":false,"explanation":"The “smashed” group gave the highest speed estimate and was most likely to report broken glass that was absent. This supported substitution rather than accurate recall."}]},{"id":"652fd2d4-0dad-4b6f-97ca-287898513c8a","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why did Loftus’s leading-question research have real-world application?","back":"It showed police must phrase questions carefully.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It showed police must phrase questions carefully.","correct":true,"explanation":"Because question wording can distort eyewitness responses and possibly memory, police interviewers must avoid leading language and phrase questions carefully to preserve evidential accuracy."},{"text":"It showed police must phrase questions quickly.","correct":false,"explanation":"The research concerned the wording of questions, not the speed at which they were asked. Police must phrase questions carefully to avoid influencing eyewitness testimony."},{"text":"It showed police must phrase questions repeatedly.","correct":false,"explanation":"Repeated questioning can increase pressure and introduce further distortion rather than protect accuracy. Loftus’s findings showed that police must phrase questions carefully and neutrally."},{"text":"It showed police must phrase questions technically.","correct":false,"explanation":"Technical language does not prevent suggestion and may confuse a witness. The practical implication was that police should phrase questions carefully to minimise leading information."}]},{"id":"24e67261-d38e-44ea-8f80-6301c5fe462f","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Post-event discussion occurs when witnesses [ ] before giving recall.","back":"Post-event discussion occurs when witnesses talk to each other before giving recall.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"talk to each other","correct":true,"explanation":"Post-event discussion occurs when co-witnesses discuss what they saw before giving their accounts, allowing information from one witness to influence another’s recall."},{"text":"write statements alone","correct":false,"explanation":"Writing statements independently prevents witnesses from exchanging information, so it is not post-event discussion. The correct completion is “talk to each other” before giving recall."},{"text":"view event footage","correct":false,"explanation":"Viewing footage may provide post-event information, but it is not discussion between witnesses. Post-event discussion occurs when witnesses “talk to each other” before recall."},{"text":"answer police questions","correct":false,"explanation":"Answering an interviewer’s questions is not necessarily communication between co-witnesses. Post-event discussion specifically occurs when witnesses “talk to each other” before giving recall."}]},{"id":"498216ca-f8b1-41b6-baf3-997ab2b0708e","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why did Gabbert show paired witnesses different angles of the same crime?","back":"So one witness saw details the other could not.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"So one witness saw details the other could not.","correct":true,"explanation":"Different angles ensured each witness had unique information, allowing researchers to test whether discussion caused one person to report details available only to the co-witness."},{"text":"So both witnesses saw exactly the same details.","correct":false,"explanation":"Identical views would not reveal whether information had transferred between witnesses. The different angles ensured one witness saw details the other could not."},{"text":"So one witness felt more anxiety than the other did.","correct":false,"explanation":"The viewing angles manipulated access to information, not anxiety. They ensured one witness saw details that the other could not see."},{"text":"So both witnesses could identify the same suspect.","correct":false,"explanation":"The procedure was not designed to compare identification ability. Different angles meant one witness saw details the other could not, enabling a test of information transfer."}]},{"id":"a9fba60e-51da-4e8d-a097-7b868816deb2","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"In Gabbert’s study, [ ] recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with [ ] in the no-discussion control.","back":"In Gabbert’s study, 71% recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with 0% in the no-discussion control.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"In Gabbert’s study, 71% recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with 0% in the no-discussion control.","correct":true,"explanation":"Discussion produced substantial memory conformity: 71% reported information they had not personally seen, whereas no participants in the no-discussion control reported unseen details."},{"text":"In Gabbert’s study, 29% recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with 0% in the no-discussion control.","correct":false,"explanation":"The 29% figure is the complement of 71%, a common subtraction slip. The control result was 0%, while 71% of those who discussed recalled unseen details."},{"text":"In Gabbert’s study, 35.5% recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with 0% in the no-discussion control.","correct":false,"explanation":"The discussion-group result has been incorrectly halved. Gabbert found that 71% recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with 0% in the no-discussion control."},{"text":"In Gabbert’s study, 71% recalled unseen details after discussion, compared with 33% in the no-discussion control.","correct":false,"explanation":"The 33% control figure is confused with a result from Johnson and Scott. Gabbert’s no-discussion control was 0%, compared with 71% after discussion."}]},{"id":"5e2e7858-279d-4f4f-9e23-de1bd4073184","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If co-witness information alters the original memory, which PED explanation is this?","back":"Memory contamination.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Memory contamination.","correct":true,"explanation":"Memory contamination occurs when information from a co-witness becomes incorporated into the witness’s original memory, so the altered account reflects a genuine memory change."},{"text":"Memory conformity.","correct":false,"explanation":"Memory conformity involves changing a report because of social influence, without necessarily changing the underlying memory. Alteration of the original memory is memory contamination."},{"text":"Weapon focus.","correct":false,"explanation":"Weapon focus concerns anxiety narrowing attention towards a weapon during an event. Co-witness information altering the original memory is explained by memory contamination."},{"text":"Retrieval failure.","correct":false,"explanation":"Retrieval failure means stored information cannot be accessed because suitable cues are absent. Incorporating co-witness information into the original memory is memory contamination."}]},{"id":"f32eefcd-1a7f-4d78-ae3f-8dcffce019c5","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If a witness changes their report for social approval, which PED explanation is this?","back":"Memory conformity.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Memory conformity.","correct":true,"explanation":"Memory conformity occurs when a witness publicly changes their account to agree with others or gain social approval, even if their private memory has not changed."},{"text":"Memory contamination.","correct":false,"explanation":"Memory contamination requires misleading information to alter the witness’s underlying memory. A report changed for social approval is instead explained by memory conformity."},{"text":"Weapon focus.","correct":false,"explanation":"Weapon focus describes attention narrowing around a weapon because of anxiety. Changing a report to gain approval from other people is memory conformity."},{"text":"Retrieval failure.","correct":false,"explanation":"Retrieval failure is an inability to access stored information because appropriate cues are unavailable. Socially motivated agreement with another account is memory conformity."}]},{"id":"3771f2fd-59db-410d-bc1b-6fae984cdb89","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What is the weapon focus effect?","back":"Anxiety focuses attention on the weapon, reducing recall of other details.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Anxiety focuses attention on the weapon, reducing recall of other details.","correct":true,"explanation":"A threatening weapon captures and narrows the witness’s attention. This improves attention to the weapon itself but leaves fewer attentional resources for faces and surrounding details."},{"text":"Anxiety focuses attention on the offender, reducing recall of other details.","correct":false,"explanation":"Weapon focus predicts that attention is drawn away from the offender’s face and towards the threatening weapon. Consequently, identification and recall of other details are reduced."},{"text":"Anxiety focuses attention on the setting, reducing recall of other details.","correct":false,"explanation":"The effect is not heightened attention to the whole setting. Anxiety narrows attention specifically onto the weapon, reducing recall of peripheral scene details."},{"text":"Anxiety focuses attention on the victim, reducing recall of other details.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although a victim may attract concern, weapon focus specifically refers to anxiety directing attention towards the weapon, at the expense of other information."}]},{"id":"107b99a2-eca6-41e4-9a22-10ee9a2e79c5","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"In Johnson and Scott, identification accuracy was [ ] in the low-anxiety condition and [ ] in the high-anxiety condition.","back":"In Johnson and Scott, identification accuracy was 49% in the low-anxiety condition and 33% in the high-anxiety condition.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"In Johnson and Scott, identification accuracy was 49% in the low-anxiety condition and 33% in the high-anxiety condition.","correct":true,"explanation":"Identification was better when participants saw the man holding a pen than when they saw a bloodied knife, supporting the view that high anxiety can impair identification."},{"text":"In Johnson and Scott, identification accuracy was 33% in the low-anxiety condition and 49% in the high-anxiety condition.","correct":false,"explanation":"The two percentages have been reversed. Identification accuracy was higher in the low-anxiety condition at 49% and lower in the high-anxiety condition at 33%."},{"text":"In Johnson and Scott, identification accuracy was 71% in the low-anxiety condition and 33% in the high-anxiety condition.","correct":false,"explanation":"The low-anxiety figure has been confused with the 71% result from Gabbert’s research. Johnson and Scott found 49% accuracy under low anxiety and 33% under high anxiety."},{"text":"In Johnson and Scott, identification accuracy was 49% in the low-anxiety condition and 0% in the high-anxiety condition.","correct":false,"explanation":"Zero per cent belongs to Gabbert’s no-discussion control, not Johnson and Scott’s high-anxiety condition. Their identification figures were 49% under low anxiety and 33% under high anxiety."}]},{"id":"6a69c418-8122-41f4-97c6-262a650da183","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How can fight-or-flight improve eyewitness recall?","back":"It increases alertness, improving memory for the event.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It increases alertness, improving memory for the event.","correct":true,"explanation":"The fight-or-flight response raises physiological arousal and vigilance, making the witness more alert. At manageable levels, this can strengthen attention and memory encoding."},{"text":"It decreases arousal, improving memory for the event.","correct":false,"explanation":"Fight-or-flight raises rather than lowers arousal. Its possible benefit comes from increased alertness, which can improve attention to and memory for the event."},{"text":"It increases suggestibility, improving memory for the event.","correct":false,"explanation":"Suggestibility makes memory more vulnerable to misleading information rather than more accurate. Fight-or-flight can improve recall by increasing alertness during the event."},{"text":"It increases inattention, improving memory for the event.","correct":false,"explanation":"Inattention would weaken encoding and therefore impair later recall. Fight-or-flight may improve memory because it increases alertness and attention during the event."}]},{"id":"b6e0cdc7-5ea4-4537-9001-7ae3736a016b","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What stress-accuracy relationship did Yuille and Cutshall find?","back":"Higher reported stress was linked to greater accuracy.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Higher reported stress was linked to greater accuracy.","correct":true,"explanation":"Yuille and Cutshall found a positive association: witnesses who reported experiencing more stress during the real shooting tended to provide more accurate accounts."},{"text":"Lower reported stress was linked to greater accuracy.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the study’s reported relationship. Yuille and Cutshall found that higher reported stress, rather than lower stress, was linked to greater eyewitness accuracy."},{"text":"Higher reported stress was linked to lower accuracy.","correct":false,"explanation":"A negative relationship is associated with the view that anxiety impairs recall, but Yuille and Cutshall found higher reported stress was linked to greater accuracy."},{"text":"Higher reported stress was unrelated to eyewitness accuracy.","correct":false,"explanation":"The field study did find an association rather than no relationship. Witnesses reporting higher stress during the event tended to give more accurate accounts."}]},{"id":"701f17d6-dba7-498e-ba31-6114a9873f13","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why does Yuille and Cutshall’s shooting study have high ecological validity?","back":"It studied witnesses to a real crime.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It studied witnesses to a real crime.","correct":true,"explanation":"Because the shooting occurred naturally rather than being staged in a laboratory, witnesses experienced a genuine event. This makes the findings more representative of real eyewitness testimony."},{"text":"It studied witnesses to a staged crime.","correct":false,"explanation":"A staged event would reduce ecological validity because participants know, or may suspect, that it is simulated. The study’s strength was examining witnesses to a real crime."},{"text":"It studied witnesses to a laboratory task.","correct":false,"explanation":"A laboratory task usually lacks the emotional and unpredictable features of real offending. Yuille and Cutshall’s ecological validity came from studying witnesses to a real crime."},{"text":"It studied witnesses to a fictional scenario.","correct":false,"explanation":"A fictional scenario cannot reproduce the pressures and uncertainty of witnessing an actual shooting. The study was ecologically valid because it involved witnesses to a real crime."}]},{"id":"6815747c-54dd-4654-9d61-4ee3e516f341","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The Yerkes-Dodson Law describes an [ ] relationship between anxiety and recall, with an [ ].","back":"The Yerkes-Dodson Law describes an inverted-U relationship between anxiety and recall, with an optimal point.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The Yerkes-Dodson Law describes an inverted-U relationship between anxiety and recall, with an optimal point.","correct":true,"explanation":"Recall is strongest at a moderate level of anxiety. Very low and very high anxiety are associated with poorer recall, producing an inverted-U relationship with an optimal point."},{"text":"The Yerkes-Dodson Law describes a linear relationship between anxiety and recall, with a constant increase.","correct":false,"explanation":"The law does not predict that recall rises continuously as anxiety increases. It predicts an inverted-U relationship, with recall peaking at an optimal point."},{"text":"The Yerkes-Dodson Law describes a negative relationship between anxiety and recall, with a minimum point.","correct":false,"explanation":"A purely negative relationship would mean recall continually falls as anxiety rises. Yerkes-Dodson instead proposes an inverted-U relationship, with an optimal point at moderate anxiety."},{"text":"The Yerkes-Dodson Law describes a curvilinear relationship between anxiety and recall, with a fixed point.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although the relationship is curved, the specific pattern is an inverted-U, not merely any curvilinear relationship. Recall reaches an optimal point before declining at higher anxiety."}]},{"id":"4660cc34-fe62-4210-a0ce-18fcd9aca7d3","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"According to Yerkes-Dodson, what happens after anxiety passes the optimal point?","back":"Recall accuracy declines.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Recall accuracy declines.","correct":true,"explanation":"Once anxiety exceeds the optimal level, arousal becomes excessive and interferes with attention and memory retrieval, so eyewitness recall accuracy declines."},{"text":"Recall accuracy increases.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the predicted pattern after the peak. According to Yerkes-Dodson, recall accuracy declines when anxiety passes the optimal point because excessive arousal disrupts retrieval."},{"text":"Recall accuracy remains stable.","correct":false,"explanation":"The law predicts a change after the optimal level rather than a plateau. Recall accuracy declines as excessive anxiety interferes with concentration and memory retrieval."},{"text":"Recall accuracy becomes more detailed.","correct":false,"explanation":"High anxiety does not generally improve the completeness of recall. After the optimal point, recall accuracy declines because excessive arousal can narrow attention and impair retrieval."}]},{"id":"1ffb50f2-74b3-4d1b-91db-a2a78ae31105","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"In the Cognitive Interview, why should witnesses report everything?","back":"Trivial details may trigger important memories.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Trivial details may trigger important memories.","correct":true,"explanation":"Reporting everything encourages witnesses to mention apparently minor information. Those details can act as retrieval cues, triggering access to more important memories of the event."},{"text":"Trivial details may suppress important memories.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Cognitive Interview uses detailed reporting to support retrieval, not suppress it. Trivial details may trigger important memories by providing useful associations and retrieval cues."},{"text":"Trivial details may replace important memories.","correct":false,"explanation":"Minor details are not intended to substitute for central memories. The reason for reporting everything is that trivial details may trigger important memories through associated retrieval cues."},{"text":"Trivial details may organise important memories.","correct":false,"explanation":"Organisation is not the key explanation for this Cognitive Interview instruction. Trivial details are encouraged because they may trigger important memories that might otherwise remain inaccessible."}]},{"id":"fc003572-9dcc-4521-b844-81cdcb7ca272","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why does reinstating context improve recall in the Cognitive Interview?","back":"It recreates environmental and emotional retrieval cues.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It recreates environmental and emotional retrieval cues.","correct":true,"explanation":"Reinstating context prompts witnesses to recreate the surroundings and feelings present during the event. Similar environmental and emotional cues can improve access to stored memories."},{"text":"It recreates environmental and emotional encoding cues.","correct":false,"explanation":"The interview takes place during remembering, so the relevant benefit is from retrieval cues rather than encoding cues. Context is reinstated to support access to stored memories."},{"text":"It recreates environmental and emotional leading questions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reinstating context does not rely on suggestive questioning, which could contaminate testimony. It improves recall by recreating environmental and emotional retrieval cues from the event."},{"text":"It recreates environmental and emotional post-event suggestions.","correct":false,"explanation":"Post-event suggestions introduce later information and can distort memory. Context reinstatement instead helps recall by recreating environmental and emotional retrieval cues associated with the original event."}]},{"id":"73adb491-5a17-48af-ab75-bc2ece26656e","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What does reversing the order in the Cognitive Interview help prevent?","back":"Reporting expectations of how the event happened.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Reporting expectations of how the event happened.","correct":true,"explanation":"Reversing the sequence makes it harder to rely on a rehearsed or expected story. This reduces schema-driven reporting about how the event supposedly happened."},{"text":"Reporting schemas of how the event happened.","correct":false,"explanation":"Schemas are the underlying mental frameworks, not the specific reporting habit targeted by reversing order. The technique helps prevent reporting expectations of how the event happened."},{"text":"Reporting emotions of how the event happened.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reversing order is not mainly designed to prevent emotional reporting. It disrupts expected narratives, helping prevent witnesses from reporting expectations of how the event happened."},{"text":"Reporting details of how the event happened.","correct":false,"explanation":"The technique does not aim to stop witnesses reporting details altogether. It prevents expected sequencing from shaping testimony, particularly reporting expectations of how the event happened."}]},{"id":"378fb387-c838-4372-a7c6-a0f18c927fa4","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why does changing perspective help in the Cognitive Interview?","back":"It disrupts the effect of schemas on recall.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It disrupts the effect of schemas on recall.","correct":true,"explanation":"Describing the event from another viewpoint encourages witnesses to move beyond their usual interpretation. This can disrupt schema-based reconstruction and make recall less shaped by expectations."},{"text":"It disrupts the effect of stereotypes on recall.","correct":false,"explanation":"Stereotypes are narrower beliefs about social groups, whereas the Cognitive Interview addresses broader event schemas. Changing perspective helps disrupt the effect of schemas on recall."},{"text":"It disrupts the effect of retrieval cues on recall.","correct":false,"explanation":"Retrieval cues generally support remembering and are deliberately encouraged in the Cognitive Interview. Changing perspective is intended to disrupt schemas shaping recall, not retrieval cues."},{"text":"It disrupts the effect of leading questions on recall.","correct":false,"explanation":"Leading questions are a source of suggestion, not the main process targeted by changing perspective. The technique helps disrupt the effect of schemas on recall."}]},{"id":"c9601d03-ae8d-459d-8d8c-72e27b4ffddf","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What broad focus did the Enhanced Cognitive Interview add?","back":"Social dynamics of the interview.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Social dynamics of the interview.","correct":true,"explanation":"The Enhanced Cognitive Interview added techniques addressing the interaction between interviewer and witness, including rapport and communication. These focus on the social dynamics of the interview."},{"text":"Emotional content of the event.","correct":false,"explanation":"The original Cognitive Interview already includes mental reinstatement of emotional context. The Enhanced version additionally focused on the social dynamics of the interview."},{"text":"Physical setting of the interview.","correct":false,"explanation":"Physical context can support reinstatement, but it was not the broad addition that defined the Enhanced Cognitive Interview. Its added focus was the social dynamics of the interview."},{"text":"Cognitive load of the witness.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reducing cognitive load is not the broad focus added by the Enhanced Cognitive Interview. The enhancement concentrated on rapport, communication and the social dynamics of the interview."}]},{"id":"a028bbd4-eb5b-46aa-beea-b4d51b029bd8","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Köhnken found the ECI increased [ ] information by 81%, but also increased [ ] information by 61%.","back":"Köhnken found the ECI increased correct information by 81%, but also increased incorrect information by 61%.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Köhnken found the ECI increased correct information by 81%, but also increased incorrect information by 61%.","correct":true,"explanation":"Köhnken’s meta-analysis found that the enhanced cognitive interview increased correct recall substantially, but it also produced a smaller increase in incorrect information, highlighting a limitation of the technique."},{"text":"Köhnken found the ECI increased incorrect information by 81%, but also increased correct information by 61%.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the two findings. Köhnken reported an 81% increase in correct information and a 61% increase in incorrect information, showing that the ECI improves recall but can reduce accuracy."},{"text":"Köhnken found the ECI increased correct information by 81%, but also increased correct information by 61%.","correct":false,"explanation":"This overlooks the ECI’s effect on errors by labelling both increases as correct information. The 81% increase concerned correct details, whereas the 61% increase concerned incorrect details."},{"text":"Köhnken found the ECI increased incorrect information by 81%, but also increased incorrect information by 61%.","correct":false,"explanation":"This wrongly treats both findings as increases in errors. Köhnken found that correct information increased by 81%, although incorrect information also increased by 61%."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-18","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"Eyewitness testimony","title":"Eyewitness testimony Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/a-level/psychology/aqa/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L37"}]}],"topicId":"fba14440-500e-5e9b-a657-6ef9925bb0cd","walled":"$L38"}],"$L39","$L3a"]