Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading Information

Question 1

What is misleading information?

Answer 1

Usually takes the form of a statement or question to an eyewitness after the event that wrongly implies something happened when it didn’t.

Question 2

How can misleading info after an event effect memory?

Answer 2

Can lead to reconstruction of the memories producing inaccurate recall.

Question 3

What are the types of misleading information?

Answer 3

Leading questions

Post event discussions

Question 4

What is post event discussion?

Answer 4

A conversation between co-witnesses / an interviewer and an eyewitness after a crime has taken place which may contaminate a witnesses memory for the event.

Question 5

What type of study is the “Barn and Stop sign” study by Loftus?

Answer 5

Controlled experiment

Question 6

What did the findings suggest with regards to the introduction of misleading info after the event?

Answer 6

Some of the participants recorded the post- event ,misleading info into their original memory of the event.

Question 7

Are individuals affected by misleading info if it is blatantly incorrect?

Answer 7

• No.
• This is shown in Loftus study - showing clips of a stolen purse with a different colour.
• Most of the participants noticed when the colour of the purse was different to the original.

Question 8

What can be concluded with regards to the effect of misleading info on significant vs insignificant peripheral details?

Answer 8

Misleading info involving peripheral details is more likely to distort memory then obvious and relevant info.

Question 9

Why might it be important to word questions carefully when obtaining EWT?

Answer 9

Certain words can enhance a particular response or reactions form individuals e.g. Loftus and Palmer ‘Hit, smashed bumped’ study.

Question 10

Describe the Loftus ‘Barn and stop sign’ study.

Answer 10

• Participants shown a video clip of events leading up to a car accident.
• After the clip was shown p’s were spilt into a control group and an experimental group.
• Control group were asked questions that were consistent with what they had actually seen in the video. “How fast was the white sports car travelling when it passed the stop sign?”
• Experimental group were asked questions that contained misleading info. “How fast was the white sports car travelling when it passed the barn?”
• The original video had a stop sign but no barn.

Question 11

What were the findings from Loftus ‘ Barn and stop sign’ study?

Answer 11

• 17% of participants in the experimental group reported seeing a barn in the original video.
• 3% of participants in the control group made this mistake.

Question 12

What did Loftus conclude with regards to the ‘Barn and stop sign” study?

Answer 12

Some of the participants had absorbed the misleading post - event info into their original memory for the event.

Question 13

Describe the experiment by Loftus and Palmer.

Answer 13

• Showed participants 7 films of traffic accidents.
• After each film they were asked a series of questions about events leading up to the accidents.
• Crucial question was “ How fast were the cars going when they (hit, smashed, bumped or contacted) each other?”

Question 14

What were the findings from Loftus and Palmer’s study?

Answer 14

• The verb used in the question had a significant impact on participants’ speed estimates.
• Smashed produced the highest mean estimate (40.3) and contacted produced the lowest mean estimate (31.8).

Question 15

What is a leading question?

Answer 15

A question that is worded in such a way that it may be bias how a respondent answers.

Question 16

Describe Gabbert et al’s study.

Answer 16

• Eyewitnesses (young and older adults) watched a short film of a girl stealing money from a wallet.
• Took part individually or in pairs.
• Those in pairs were lead to believe that they had been shown the same clip as their co- witnesses.
• Each EW saw a different perspective of the film.
• Only one eyewitness in each pair saw the crime being committed.
• Participants in the pay condition discussed the event together.
• All the EW completed a questionnaire relating to their memory of what they had seen in the film.

Question 17

What was the aim of Gabbert et al’s study?

Answer 17

To investigate the influence of co - witnesses on eyewitness memory.

Question 18

What were the findings of Gabbert et al’s study?

Answer 18

• 71% of participants who had discussed the event with a co-witness mistakenly recalled info that they has not witnessed.
• 60% of participants in the co- witness condition who had not seen the crime being committed, nevertheless claimed that the girl was guilty.
• Findings were similar for younger and older adults.

Question 19

What can we conclude form the Gabbert et al study?

Answer 19

• Post event discussion can contaminate the individual’s recall of the event as they may incorporate the recollections of other peoples perspectives into their own memory of the event which can lead to inaccurate recall.
• The way questions and information form others is worded may affect recall.

Question 20

What is the main limitation form Gabbert et al’s study?

Answer 20

Not entirely clear whether the distortions obtained reflect problems with memory or whether they reflect social pressure from the co- witness.