AS MEMORY - FACTORS AFFECTING EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY; MISLEADING INFORMATION

Question 1

Describe misleading information as a factor affecting EWT

Answer 1

Misleading info can be split up into leading questions and post event discussion.

Leading questions are ones that are worded to encourage one particular response. There are two expls as to why leading q’s have an effect on EWT:

1) The leading q’ actually altered the memory of the event
2) Leading q’ only altered how ppl choose to respond i.e. if ppl are unsure then their response may have been altered by the wording of the q’ but the memory itself stayed the same.

Post event discussion is when co-witnesses of a crime talk about what they have witnessed, and their memories become contaminated as a result; they combine the (potentially false) info given by other ppl with their own memories which affects recall.

Question 2

Describe a supporting study for leading q’s

Answer 2

(+ leading q’s) Loftus and Palmer (1974) got all ppts to watch a video of a car crash and then had them all answer a questionnaire that had one critical q’: “About how far were the cars going when they _____ each other?”. C1 had “contacted”, C2 had “bumped”, C3 had “collided”, C4 had “hit” and C5 had “smashed. Mean estimated speed for C5 was 40.5 mph compared to C1 31.8 mph

Question 3

Describe a supporting study for post event discussion

Answer 3

(+ post event discussion) Gabbert et al (2003) paired ppts up and had them each watch a video of the same crime, but each member of the pair watched it from a different perspective, so that they saw things that their partner didn’t. In C1, pairs were allowed to discuss what they’d seen and then answer the questionnaire, whilst in C2 they just answered the questionnaire straight away. In C1, 71% of ppts reported details they couldn’t have seen from their video angle, whilst in C2 it was 0%.

Question 4

Evaluate misleading information as a factor affecting EWT

Answer 4

(+ post event discussion) Gabbert et al (2003)
(+ leading q’s) Loftus and Palmer (1974)
(-) Both of these studies were lab exp.s which means ppts could have been showing demand characteristics which lowers the validity
(-) Both studies, especially Loftus and Palmer, use artificial materials; watching a video of a crime/ accident is very different to witnessing it in real life, so findings aren’t generalisable to real life.
(-) In lab exps, ppts generally know that their responses aren’t going to have any major cinsequences, so may take their responses less seriously and therefore have a less accurate recall. But in real life e.g. in a murder trial, EWT can be a matter of life and death (or life imprisonment), so witnesses would take their responses more seriously and have better recall, so these exp.s may underestimate the accuracy of EWT
(+) Misleading info research has led to real life applications; police now can’t use leading q’s in interviews; positive impact on justice system