Eyewitness testimony: Misleading Information Flashcards
When was Loftus and Palmer’s leading questions study?
1974
What was the procedure of Loftus and Palmer’s leading questions study?
45 students watched videos of car accidents and answer questions about speed. The question “About how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?” was asked, with the verbs hit, contacted, bumped, smashed or collided used.
What were the findings of Loftus and Palmer’s leading questions study?
The verb contacted produced a mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph, the verb smashed produced a mean of 40.5 mph. The leading verb biased eyewitness recall of the event.
What is the response-bias explanation?
The wording of a question has no enduring effect of the memory of the event, but influences the kind of answer given.
What is the substitution explanation.
The wording of a question does affect eyewitness memory, it interferes with the original memory, distorting its accuracy.
When was Gabbert et al.’s Post-event discussion research?
2003
What was the procedure of Gabbert et al.’s Post-event discussion research?
Paired Participants watched a video of the same crime, but filmed so. each participant could see elements in the clip that the other could not. Both participants discussed what they had seen on the video before answering a recall test.
What were the findings of Gabbert et al.’s Post-event discussion research?
71% of participants wrongly recalled aspects of the event they didn’t see but heard in the discussion. This is evidence of memory conformity.
What is memory contamination?
When co-witnesses discuss a crime, they mix information from other witnesses with their own memories.
What is memory conformity?
Witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right.
Strength- real-world applications of the justice system
Loftus 1975 argued that police officers should be careful in phrasing questions because of distorting effects. Psychologists can improve how the justice system works and protect the innocent from faulty EWT based convictions.
Limitation of Substitution explanation- Sutherland and Hayne 2001
Their participants recalled central details of an event better than peripheral ones, even despite misleading questions. This is presumably because their attention was focused on such central features and thus resistant to misleading information.
Limitation of memory conformity- Skagerberg and Wright 2008
Participants recalled a “blend” of what everyone had heard after discussing film clips, rather than one or another piece of information. This supports memory contamination but not memory conformity.
