Accuracy of EWT: misleading info Flashcards
Eyewitness testimony
The ability of people to remember the details of events such as crimes or accidents
Misleading information
Incorrect info given to the eyewitness usually after the event; often called post-event information.
-Can take forms such as leading questions and post-event discussions between other witnesses.
Leading question- a question which because of the way it is phrased, it suggests a certain answer.
Loftus + Palmer (1974)
Arranged for 45 student ppts to watch film clips of car accidents.
-After each film, ppts were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident, then answer a series of specific questions about it.
-There was one critical question which was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’.
-One group was given that question whilst the other 4 were given the verbs smashed, collided, bumped or contacted in replacement of the word hit.
-The group given the verb ‘smashed’ estimated a higher speed than the other groups, around 41 mph.
-The group given the verb ‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed, 30mph.
Findings:
The more powerful the verb given, the higher the estimated speed of the crash.
Conclusion:
EWT is inaccurate and unreliable
The verb gave misleading information which altered the memory of the crash seen.
Post-event discussion
When there is more than one witness to an event and they may discuss what they have seen with other witnesses which may influence the accuracy of each witness’ recall of the event causing the witness’ memory to become contaminated
Gabbert et al (2003)
Aims:
investigate the effect of post-event information( this can also lead to memory distortion) on accuracy of recall.
Procedure:
Each ppt watched the same video of a crime, BUT filmed from different POVs- this meant each ppt could see elements of the crime that the others couldn’t.
Findings:
71% if tge ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they didn’t se in the video but had later learnt through discussions with other ppts.
In a control group- were not allowed to discuss with others- no errors were made.
Conclusion:
Witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they’re wrong- memory conformity.
Bodner et al (2003)
Reducing memory conformity
Aims:
investigated whether the effects of post-event information can be reduced.
Procedure:
120 ppts were first shown a crime video and then presented w/ details that weren’t in the original video (non-witness details) either through discussing the event with other people, by reading a report of the event or watching another version.
Findings:
All 3 groups reported non-witnessed details after exposure to discussion, report or video, suggesting post-event info reduces accuracy of witnesses recall.
BUT when the experiment was repeated and ppts were warned against including details from their post-video groups, all 3 groups showed a significant decrease in report on non-witnessed details.
Conclusions:
Post-warning worked to encourage more sensitive source monitoring, caused a decrease in conformity to the post-event information
AO3 EVAL strength loftus + palmer
A strength of research into misleading information is the practical applications its had on the real world.
Consequences of inaccurate EWT can be devastating
Loftus believes that leading questions can have a distorting effect on our memory, research on this has led to police officers changing their way of questioning to avoid the distorting effect + inaccurate accounts of events.
Research done into this area can have a positive effect on peoples lives, through the improvement of the legal system: increasing the accuracy of eye witnesses and decreasing wrongful convictions.
AO3 EVAL limitation
Practical applications may be affected by the research
In Loftus and Palmer’s research, ppts watched several film clips in a lab, which cannot reflect the real stress associated when witnessing a real event.
Foster et al (1994) points out that what ppts remember have consequences in the real world, whereas during a research they aren’t as crucial in the same way, so ppts may not put in the same effort to be accurate.
Suggests researchers such as Loftus may be too pessimistic may be too pessimistic about misleading info + that EWT may be more dependable than studies make it out to be.
