Factors Affecting EWT: Misleading Information

Question 1

What is EWT?

Answer 1

The ability of people to remember the details of events such as accidents and crimes, which they themselves have observed. Accuracy of EWT can be affected by factors such as misleading information, leading questions and anxiety

Question 2

What are the 3 main points when discussing leading questions?

Answer 2

1- questions which suggest a certain answer
2- response-bias explanation: wording affects answer only
3- substitution explanation: wording affects actual memory

Question 3

Explain point 1: questions which suggest a certain answer

Answer 3

• leading questions, because of the way they are phrased, suggest a certain answer
• e.g. “ was the knife in the accused’s left hand?”
• inadvertently suggest answer is left hand

Question 4

Explain point 2: response-bias explanation

Answer 4

Suggests wording of the question has no real effect on eyewitness memories of an event, but does influence how they decide to answer

Question 5

Explain point 3: substitution explanation

Answer 5

• in contrast to response-bias explanation, substitution explanation suggests wording of the question does affect eyewitness actual memory of the event
• wording of the question may interfere with the original memory in sole way which distorts the accuracy of that particular memory

Question 6

What was a key study conducted into leading questions?

Answer 6

Loftus and Palmer’s lab experiment

Question 7

What was the aim of Loftus and Palmer’s lab experiment?

Answer 7

Investigate the extent to which eyewitness testimony (recall) can be affected by leading questions

Question 8

What was the procedure of Loftus and Palmer’s lab experiment?

Answer 8

• arranged for 45 American participant ‘students’ to watch film clips of car accidents and then gave them questions regarding the witnessed accident
• leading question included verb about the speed (IV)
• 5 groups of participants each given a different verb in the critical question: one group had ‘hit’ whilst others had ‘contacted’, ‘bumped’, ‘collided’ and ‘smashed’
• estimate speed was gathered from each group of participants

Question 9

What were the findings of Loftus and Palmer’s lab experiment?

Answer 9

• mean estimate speed was calculated for each participant group
• verb ‘contacted’ resulted in mean estimate speed of 31.8mph
• in contrast, for ‘smashed’ the mean was 40.5mh

Question 10

What was conclusion made from Loftus and Palmer’s lab experiment?

Answer 10

• recall bias caused by leading questions
• the verb ‘smashed’ suggested that the speed of the car was faster than the verb ‘contacted’ due to the nature of the verb and participants altered their responses accordingly

Question 11

One source of misleading information can come from leading questions but can also come from other sources such as

Answer 11

Co-witnesses = post-event discussion

Question 12

When does post-event discussion occur?

Answer 12

When more than one witness to an event

Question 13

What is involved in post-event discussion?

Answer 13

witnesses may converse about what they observed with other co-witnesses, or simply hear what other people have experienced

Question 14

Explain how post-event discussion can cause eyewitness memories to become contaminated

Answer 14

• when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion) their eye witness memories may become contaminated I.e. changed by what others recall
• because they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
• e.g. if one witness remembers seeing another person there, other co-witnesses may then start imagining this happened = becomes incorporated into their own memory

Question 15

Explain how post-even discussion may lead to memory conformity

Answer 15

• co-witnessed often go along with each other: either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right or wrong = memory conformity
• an example of compliance rather than internalisation

Question 16

What was a key study into post-event discussion?

Answer 16

Gabbert et al

Question 17

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

Answer 17

To investigate the effect of post-event discussion on accuracy of EWT

Question 18

What was the procedure of Gabbert et al’s post-event discussion?

Answer 18

• sample of 60 students from university of Aberdeen and 60 older adults recruited from a local community
• participants either either individually (control group) or in pairs (co-witness group)
• all participants watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet
• participants in pairs watched the saw video but from different points of view so each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not
• both participants then discussed what they had seen on the video before individually completing a test of recall

Question 19

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

Answer 19

• almost 3/4 (71%) of participants mistakenly recalled aspects they did not see in their video but picked up in post-event discussion
• 0% errors in control group
• suggesting post-event has a significant effect on eyewitness testimony

Question 20

What are the evaluation points for misleading information affecting EWT?

Answer 20

✅ real life-application of research into misleading information (Loftus)
❌ one limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s study is the use of artificial materials
❌research into leading questions lacks ecological validity (Foster)
❌ many answers participants give in lab studies of EWT are result of demand characteristics

Question 21

Explain how one great strength of all research into misleading information is the real life applications

Answer 21

• nature or researcher has led to hugely important practical uses for police officers and investigators
• this is important as the consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious indeed
• e.g. Loftus believes that leading questions can have such a distorting influence on memory that police officers need to be very careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses
• research into EWT is one area in which psychologists believe they can make an important difference to the lives of real people- for instance, by improving the way the legal system works and by appearing in court trials as expert witnesses

Question 22

Explain how one limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s study is the use of artificial materials

Answer 22

• participants were asked to watch film clips of car accidents = very different experience from witnessing a real accident, mainly because it lacks emotion/anxiety provoked of a real accident
• study by Yuille and Cutshall found that people who had witnessed a traumatic real armed robbery had very accurate recall after 4 months = participants who reported highest level of stress were more accurate
  = limitation as studies that use such artificial tasks tell us very little about how leading questions affect EWT in cases of real life accidents as no matter how real they seem, differ highly from witnessing an unexpected real life incident
• BUT was a lab study = variables highly controlled including potential extraneous variables like what happened moments before accident which could affect recall as all participants exposed to same video clip so would expect high internal validity but as discussed, potentially low external validity

Question 23

Explain how research into leading questions lacks ecological validity (Foster)

Answer 23

• Foster et al points out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in real life
• e.g. in real life, eye witnesses may search their memory with greater effort as their testimony may lead to a successful conviction (or wrongful conviction if they are inaccurate) whereas in EWT studies, participants may be flippant in their answers
• as such it could be argued that EWT accuracy is greater in real life due to seriousness in which eyewitnesses undertake their role

Question 24

Explain how many answers participants give in lab studies of EWT are result of demand characteristics

Answer 24

• participants do not want to let the researcher down and want to appear helpful and attentive
• so when they’re asked a question they’re not entirely sure of an answer to, they guess- especially if a yes/no question
• e.g. participants might be asked “did you see a blue car?”- even in the case where there was not a blue car in the clip, participants may answer yes to this question as it seems like a more helpful answer
• presents an issue for research info leading questions as if challenges the validity of that research as EWT studies intend to measure accuracy of eyewitness memories but the answer eye witnesses give may not truly reflect their memory of the event