7) Eyewitness testimony : Misleading Information Flashcards
Who investigated Leading questions
Loftus Palmer
What was the procedure of Loftus and palmer
Participants watched film clips of car accidents, and answered Q’s about speed
- Contacted 31mph - Smashed 40mph
Why do leading questions affect EWT
Response bias
Substitution explanation - where wording interferes with original memory
Who investigated Post event discussion
Gabbert
What was the procedure of Gabbert
Paired participant who thought they were watching the same video but actually different perspectives - then discussed what they had seen
Effect of post event discussion
71% wrongly recalled aspects of the event
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT
Memory Contamination
Memory Conformity
EV of misleading information - real world application in the criminal justice system
- Loftus argues police should be careful in phrasing questions due to distorting effects
- Psychologist can help explain limitations of EWT to juries, preventing faulty convictions
- Therefore psychologists can improve how the system works and prevent innocent from the faulty
EV of misleading information - evidence challenging the substitution explanation
- A study conducted showed participants recalled central details of an event better than peripheral ones, even when asked misleading questions
- because their attention was focused on the centralised features and these memories were resistant to misleading information
- therefore, the original memory of the event survived which is not predicted by the substitution situation
EV of misleading information - evidence does not support memory conformity
- In a study participants discussed film clips they had seen, the participants recalled a blend of what they had seen, and heard from their co-witness
- this suggests that the memory itself distorted through contamination by post-event discussion and not the result of memory
