Eyewitness testimony: Misleading information

Question 1

What is Post event discussion?

Answer 1

• When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, there eyewitnesses become contaminated.
• This is because they combine (mis)information from the other witnesses with their own memories.
• This may influence the accuracy of each witness’s recall of the event.

Question 2

Post event discussion: Research support (Procedure)

Answer 2

Gabbert
- Studied ppts in pairs.
- Each ppt watched a video of the same crime but filmed at different angles.
- This means that each ppt could see elements that others could not.
- Both ppts then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.

Question 3

Post event discussion: Research support (findings).

Answer 3

• 71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the discussion.
• Control group= 0% (where there was no discussion).
• This concludes that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong (memory conformity).

Question 4

What is a leading question?

Answer 4

• A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer.

Question 5

Why do leading questions effect EWT’s?

Answer 5

Response bias explanation= suggests that the wording of a question has no real effect on the ppts memories, but just influences how they decide to answer.

Substitution explanation= the wording of a leading question actually changes the the ppts memory of the event.

Question 6

Leading questions: Research support (Procedure)

Answer 6

Loftus & Palmer
- Arranged for ppts to watch film clips of car accidents and then asked them questions after.
- In the critical question (leading question) the ppts were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling (“About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”).
- This is a leading question as the verb “hit” suggests the speed that the car was going.
- 5 groups= hit, smashed. collided, contacted, bumped.

Question 7

Leading questions: Research support (Findings)

Answer 7

• Mean estimated speed was calculated for each ppt group.
  Contacted= 31.8 mph.
  Smashed= 40.5 mph
• Leading question biased the eyewitnesses recall of an event.

Question 8

Loftus and Palmer: Experiment 2 (Aims)

Answer 8

Experiment 2: the broken glass manipulation.
Aim=investigating do leading questions simply create a response bias, or do they actually alter a persons memory.

Question 9

Loftus & Palmer: Experiment 2 (Procedure)

Answer 9

• 150 students shown a 1 minute film, which featured a car driving through the countryside followed by 4s of a multiple traffic accident.
• After the students were questioned about the film, the individual variable was the type of question asked.
• 50 ppts= how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
• 50 ppts= how fast were the cars going when they smashed each other?
• 50 ppts asked no question.

One week later: DV was measured.
- Without seeing the film again, they answered 10 Qs one of which was critical + randomly placed:
“Did you see any broken glass? Yes or no?”.
- There was no broken glass in the original film.

Question 10

Loftus & Palmer: Experiment 2 (findings).

Answer 10

• Participants who were asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed were more likely to report seeing broken glass.

Question 11

Loftus & Palmer: Experiment 2 (Conclusion).

Answer 11

• This research suggests that questioning techniques easily distort memory, and information acquired after an event can merge with the original memory, causing inaccurate recall or reconstructive memory.
• Results from experiment 2 suggest that this effect is not just due to a response bias, because leading questions altered the ppts memory of the event.

Question 12

Loftus & Palmer (Evaluation)

Answer 12

+
1. High levels of control= lab based research- control over confounding variables.

2. Practical implications= Important implications for interviewing witnesses (create the correct interview questions- police use etc.).

-
1. Low ecological validity= lacks mundane realism, video clips rather than real life- does not have them same emotional impact, ppts may not experience same stress levels.

2. Demand characteristics= ppts knew they were in lab study- may have gone along with what they thought/ or the researchers suggestions (altered memories).