Factors Affecting EWT- Leading Questions

Question 1

Lotus and Palmer- Car crash experiment

Answer 1

Procedure
- 45 students shown film clips of car accidents.
- They were asked a variety of questions, but one that was the experimental questions ‘How fast was the car going when it …. into the other vehicle’. They added in 5 different verbs.
Results
- Hit- 31mph (mean), Smashed- 41 mph (mean). Leading questions change our memories. Therefore, EWT isn’t reliable and shouldn’t be used if interviewers used leading questions.

Question 2

Lotus and Palmer- Broken glass experiment

Answer 2

Procedure
- 150 students. 7 film clips. Hit, Smashed. Asked questions. Guess estimate mph.
Results
- One week later reinterviewed and asked question; ‘Did you see broken glass’. More people reported seeing broken glass when verb ‘smashed’ was used than ‘hit’.

Question 3

Evaluation support- Research support

Answer 3

• One strength is that there is research support.
• Ev- Loftus and Palmer- Showed participants of videos of crashes using different verbs and they had to estimate the mph. Hit- 31 mph. Smashed- 41 mph.
• Ex- Leading questions decrease accuracy.
• However, Loftus and Palmers 2nd experiment on broken glass removed the response bias and ensures long term reconstructive memory.

Question 4

Evaluation criticism- Lacks ecological validity

Answer 4

• One weakness is that it lacks ecological and lack of real life consequences.
• Ev- Yuille and Cutshall. Interviewed 13 EW’s to real life armed robbery. 2 misleading questions but very accurate 4 months after robbery.
• Ex- No consequences in Loftus and Palmers study, so lack of surprise/emotion, unlike in Yuille and Cutshall. Hence why leading questions did not affect in real life.
• However, could be due to impact on anxiety (Yerkes-Dodson Law) rather than seriousness of consequences. Good application to real life.