EWT: Misleading Information Flashcards
What are leading questions?
questions phrased to get a certain answer that make p’s schemas influence their answer
Key study: Loftus and Palmer experiment 1
A- effect of leading q’s on EWT
M- 45 American students estimating speed of cars, 5 conditions, lab, opportunity, asked specific question “how fast going when smash/hit/collide/contact/bump”
R- estimated speed affected by verb used affected p’s memory. P’s asked w “smash” reported high than p’s w “hit”
Evaluation of Lotfus and Palmer experiment 1
Lim- low eco validity bc lab with artificial task
Stren- lab based so high degree control over EV’s
What is Response Bias Explaination?
Wording of question doesn’t affect memory but influences how p’s decide to answer
What is Substituition Explaination?
Wording of question changes the p’s memory of the event
Lotfus and Palmer- Substitution Explaination
A- invest substitution Explaination
M- 150 students shown 1 min film of car then traffic accident, 50 asked how fast going when smashed 50 asked when hit, week later asked seeing any broken glass
R- p’s asked how fast going when smashed more likely report seeing broken glass
C- effect not just due to response bias question because leading questions actually altered the memory
How does Loftus and Palmer provide support for substitution explaination?
Wording of question of how fast cars going when smashed/hit and if there was any glass, changed p’s memory of events. ‘Smashed’= glass
What is Post Event Discussion?
- potential source of misleading information where witnesses discuss what saw after event
- EWT can become CONTAMINATED as info from other witness is combined with their own memories
Post event discussion: Gabbert EWT al
A- invest effect of post event discussion on accuracy of eyewitness testimony
M- 60 students, 60 adults from local community. Watched video of girl stealing money from wallet, tested individually or in pairs. P’s in pairs watched diff videos, told watched same, discussed what saw
R- 71% of witnesses in pairs recalled info they hadn’t seen, 60% said girl was guilty without committing crime
Evaluation of Gabbert
Strength- good pop validity as large sample from 2 diff age ranges
Evaluation of Misleading Info. Simple
S- practical application
S- supporting research
L- post event discussion alters EWT
PEELC of practical application
E- findings from research used in criminal justice system like knowing that EWT can’t always be reliable. Gabbert found people change answers in PED
E- psychologists can be asked as expert witnesses in court trials and explain limits of EWT
L- shows research in EWT useful so improve legal system and protect innocent people
C- lacks eco validity bc done in artificial setting + task. Ungen
Explain supporting research for effect of misleading info on EWT
E- eg Loftus and Palmer found verb used in questions effected p’s memory of accident
E- research may be flawed bc lab style so demand characteristics
L- better way to study EWT would be natural
Explain PED alters EWT
E- research showed their p’s film clips. 2 versions- mugger hair dark brown/light brown. Discussed clips in pairs each seeing diff versions
E- memory conformity explaination suggests witnesses go along with each other to twin social approval, p’s gave a blend of what seen eg hair was medium brown
L- suggests memory itself is distorted through contamination by PED rather than result of memory conformity
