Accuracy of EWT: Misleading Information

Question 1

Describe Loftus and Palmer’s first study on leading questions

Answer 1

• Procedure: 45 students shown 7 different films of traffic accidents. After they were asked question about it, including a critical question: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ Other 4 groups were given the verbs: smashed, collided, bumped or contacted.
• Findings: Smashed produced the highest mean speed estimate (40.8), collided (39.3), bumped (38.1), hit (34), contacted (31.8)

Question 2

Describe Loftus and Palmer’s second study on leading questions

Answer 2

• Procedure: To test if the leading question may bias a response or alter info before it’s stored, a new set of participants was divided into 3, shown a film of a car accident then asked about the speed. A week later, they were asked again including a critical question: ‘Did you see any broken glass?’ There was none, but those who thought the car was going faster might think they saw broken glass.
• Findings: Those in the ‘smashed’ verb condition were more likely to say they had seen broken glass (16 said yes) compared to the hit condition (7 said yes) and the control group (6 said yes)

Question 3

Describe post-event discussion

Answer 3

• Conformity effect: Gabbert et al (2003) investigated that co-witnesses may reach a consensus view of what actually happened. Participants were in pairs where each saw a different video of the same event so each saw unique items. Pairs in 1 condition were encouraged to discuss the event before they had to individually recall it. 71% of witnesses who discussed the event went on to mistakenly recall items acquired in discussion
• Repeat interviewing: Every time a witness is interviewed comments from the interviewer may be incorporated into their recollection. Interviewer may use leading questions and alter memory. LaRooy et al found this was especially the case when children were interviewed.

Question 4

What are the 3 stages of eyewitness memory?

Answer 4

1. Witness encodes into LTM details of the event. Encoding may be partial or distorted as crimes are quick, violent, maybe at night.
2. Witness retains info and memories may be lost or modified during retention
3. Witness retrieves memory. Presence or absence of retrieval cues or nature of questioning may affect accuracy

Question 5

Give strengths the misleading information explanation

Answer 5

• Considerable evidence supporting the influence of misleading info. Braun et al asked college students, who has been to Disneyland as a kid, to evaluate advert material about Disney with misleading about Bugs Bunny (not a Disney character) or Ariel (not introduced when they were children.) Participants in the Ariel or Bugs Bunny were more likely to report having shaken hands with those characters than in the control group (no misleading info) Shows misleading info can create inaccurate memory
• Understanding of misleading info has led to practical applications. Research has been used to warn the justice system of problems with EWT. Wells and Olson (2003) found that in recent DNA exoneration cases showed mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people.

Question 6

Give limitations of the misleading information explanation

Answer 6

• Loftus and Palmer’s research lacks external validity. Lab experiments may not represent real life as they aren’t as emotionally aroused in the way they would be in real life. Foster et al (1994) found if participants thought they were watching a real robbery, and responses would affect the trial, then identification of a robber was more accurate. Yullie and Cutshall (1986) found witnesses to an armed robbery in Canada gave very accurate reports of the crime after 4 months despite initially being given 2 misleading questions. Suggests misleading info may have less influence on EWT than Loftus’ research suggests.
• Research into misleading info may fail to account for individual differences. An EW acquires info from 2 sources, observing the event and subsequent suggestions (misleading info). Schacter et al (1991) found, compared to younger subjects, elderly people have difficulty remembering the source of their info, even though their memory of the info itself is unimpaired. So they become more prone to the effect of misleading info when giving testimony. Suggests individual differences, e.g. age, are important when assessing the reliability of EWT.