Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading Information

Question 1

What are Leading Questions?

Answer 1

Leading questions are questions that are worded to suggest a particular answer.

Question 2

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Aim

Answer 2

To test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.

Question 3

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Procedure

Answer 3

• Students watched clips of car accidents.
• A question was then provided to the participants.
• Critical question: ‘About how fast were the cars travelling when they hit each other?’
• The verb ‘hit’ suggested the speed at which the cars were travelling.
• There were groups of participants, with each group given a different verb in the critical question, eg, hit, contacted, bumped, collided and smashed.

Question 4

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Findings

Answer 4

The mean speed given by participants was the highest when the verb was changed to ‘smashed’ (40.5mph) vs ‘contacted’ (31.8mph).

Question 5

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Conclusion

Answer 5

Leading questions influence eyewitness recall of events.

Question 6

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Strength

Answer 6

• Loftus and Palmer’s research was conducted as a lab experiment which is high in control. This means that the study is easy to replicate.
• All participants were presented with the same videos of car crashes and the wording of the critical question was the same except for the verb.
• This makes the study more reliable/consistent.
• We are better able to imply cause and effect between the IV (verbs) and DV (speed estimate) because no other extraneous variables interfere with these.

Question 7

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Strength

Answer 7

Loftus and Palmer used an independent measures design, where each participant experienced only 1 of the 5 verb conditions. This reduces order effects, such as practice, as participants are less able to practice estimating speeds. This therefore increases internal validity as speed estimates are clearly a reflection of the verb used in the critical question, rather than any other variables.

Question 8

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Weakness

Answer 8

The experiment has a low ecological validity as the participants only watched a clip of a car crash and so didn’t feel the stress or trauma that would be naturally felt in a real life situation which would also impact EWTs. Artificial nature of the experiment reduced its ecological validity as participants knew what to expect. This, therefore, means that the findings cannot be applied or generalised because memory distorted by leading questions can not be applied to memory recall in real life, due to other variables such as trauma.

Question 9

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 1 ‘Smash, Bump, Collide’ - Weakness

Answer 9

The experiment doesn’t take into account individual differences, such as driving ability, eyesight and memory ability. These individual differences may lead to conclusions being biased, as ppts will rely on the researcher’s opinion.

Question 10

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 2 ‘Did you see the broken glass?’ - Aim

Answer 10

To test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.

Question 11

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 2 ‘Did you see the broken glass?’ - Procedure

Answer 11

• Same as experiment 1.
• Asked the question of ‘did you see the broken glass?’ at the end of being shown the clip.

Question 12

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 2 ‘Did you see the broken glass?’ - Findings

Answer 12

Those in the ‘smashed’ condition were more likely report seeing glass than those in the ‘hit’ condition.

Question 13

Case Study - Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 2 ‘Did you see the broken glass?’ - Conclusion

Answer 13

Leading questions can alter your memory.

Question 14

Explanation for leading questions

Answer 14

1) Response bias explanation
- Wording of a question has no effect on memory.
- It may only influence how someone may choose to respond.
- For example, the verb ‘smashed’ may have encouraged participants to choose a higher speed.

2) Substitution explanation
- Wording of a question does have an effect on memory.

Question 15

What is Post-Event Discussion?

Answer 15

• When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
• They do this by combining the misinformation of others into their own memory.

Question 16

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Aim

Answer 16

Investigate the effect of post-event discussion on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Question 17

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Procedure

Answer 17

• Participants placed in pairs.
• Each participant watched a video of the same crime but from a different angle.
• Each participant could only see an element of the same crime that the other could not.
• Both then discussed what they had seen.
• Then individually completed a test of recall.

Question 18

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Findings

Answer 18

• Discussion condition: 71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects they had picked up from their discussion.
• Control = 0%

Question 19

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Conclusion

Answer 19

Showed how post-event discussion affects the accuracy of EWT and is evidence of memory conformity.

Question 20

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Strength

Answer 20

• Gabbert et al. tested two different populations.
• University students and older adults.
• Found little difference between these two conditions.
• Good population validity.
• We can conclude that post-event discussion affects younger and older adults in a similar way.

Question 21

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Strength

Answer 21

• Research support.
• Skagberg and Wright showed their participants a film clip.
• In one clip, the mugger’s hair was dark brown and in the other clip, the mugger’s hair was light brown.
• Participants discussed the clip in pairs, each having seen a different version of the clips.
• They often did not report what they had seen from the clips or what they had heard from their co-witness, but a blend of the two.
• Suggests that eyewitness testimonies are distorted through post-event discussion.

Question 22

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Weakness

Answer 22

• Questionable ecological validity.
• Participants in the co-witness condition witnessed different perspectives of the same crime.
• However, they knew what to expect and so may have paid more close attention to the details of the video clip.
• The results do not reflect everyday examples of crime where witnesses may be exposed to less information.

Question 23

Case Study - Post-Event Discussion - Gabbert and Colleagues (2003) - Weakness

Answer 23

• Unable to conclude why the distortion occurs.
• Distortion could be the result of poor memory so people assimilate new information into their account

Question 24

Explanation for post-event discussion

Answer 24

1) Source monitoring theory
- Memories of events are distorted.
- An EW can recall details of an event but they can’t remember where they remember it from.
- Their own memory? Or someone told them? = source of confusion.

2) Conformity theory
- EWs change what they remember to fit in with co-witnesses.
- They may do this for social approval or they genuinely think that they are wrong and others are right.

3) Memory contamination
- The way an event is remembered can also be altered or contaminated by discussing it with others and/or being questioned repeatedly.

Question 25

Misleading Information - Strength

Answer 25

• Useful real-life applications.
• Hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious.
• Eg, Loftus (1975) believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be very careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses.
• Research into EWT is 1 area in which psychologists believe they can make an important positive difference to the lives of real people, eg, by improving the way the legal system works and by appearing in court trials as expert witnesses.

Question 26

Misleading Information - Strength

Answer 26

Highlighting misleading information as a negative factor in EWT had led to new techniques designed to improve memory retrieval, such as the cognitive interview developed by Geiselman and colleagues.

Question 27

Misleading Information - Weakness

Answer 27

• Individual differences.
• There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
• For example, Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found that people in age groups 18-25 and 3-45 were more accurate than people in the group 55-78 years.
• However, all age groups were more accurate when identifying people of their own age group (called own age bias).
• Research studies often use younger people as the tagger to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear less accurate but in fact this is not true.

Question 28

Misleading Information - Weakness

Answer 28

• Demand characteristics.
• Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers ppts give in lab studies of EWT are the result of demand characteristics.
• Ppts usually do not want to let the researcher down, and want to appear helpful and attentive.
• So when asked a question they don’t know the answer to, they guess.
• This is a limitation as demand characteristics can invalidate research studies by providing an alternative explanation for the results.