Factors Affecting Eyewitness Testimony - Misleading Information Flashcards
What is an Eyewitness Testimony (EWT)
The ability of people to remember details of events such as accidents or crimes that they observed
Accuracy can be affected by factors such as misleading information, leading questions and anxiety
What is Misleading Information
Incorrect information given to the eyewitness
Can take many forms such as leading questions and post-event discussions between co-witnesses or other people
What is a Leading Question
A question which, because of the way it’s phrased, prompts a certain answer
What is a Post-Event Discussion
Occurs when there is more than one witness to an event
Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or other people
May influence the accuracy of each witness’s recall of the event
Research on Leading Questions - Loftus and Palmer (1974)
45 participants (students) watched clips of car accidents
They were then asked questions about the accident
They were asked the leading question: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit/collided/bumped/contacted/smashed each other?” (each group had a different verb)
Findings (mean estimated speed) -
Contacted = 31.8mph
Hit = 34.0 mph
Bumped = 38.1mph
Collided = 39.3 mph
Smashed = 40.5mph
Why do leading questions affect Eye-Witness Testimonies
The response-bias explanation suggests the wording of the question has no real effect on the participant’s memory but does influence how they decide to answer
Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Experiment 2 -
Supported the Substitution Explanation which proposes that the wording of a leading question changes the participant’s memory of the film clip
Participants who heard “smashed” were more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none)
Research on Post-Event Discussions - Gabbert et al (2003)
Studied participants in pairs
Each participant watched a video of the same crime but shot from a different point of view
Meant each participant could see elements that the other could not
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before completing an individual recall test
Found that 71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion
The figure in a control group with no discussion was 0%
Evidence of memory conformity
Why does Post-Event Disscussions affect Eye-Witness Testimonies (Memory Contamination/Conformity)
Memory Contamination - When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their EWT may become altered or distorted due to combining (mis)information from other EW with their own memories
Memory Conformity - Gabbert et al concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right. Unlike memory contamination, the actual memory is unchanged
Evaluation (STRENGTH) - Real-World Application
Has important practical uses in the criminal justice system
Consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious
Shows that psychologists can help to improve the way the legal system works, especially by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
Loftus (1975) -
Believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officer should be very careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses
Psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials and explain the limits of EWT to juries
Evaluation - Real-World Application (COUNTERPOINT)
Practical applications of EWT may have been affected by issues with research
Suggests researchers such as Loftus are too pessimistic about the effects of misleading information and EWT may be more dependable than many studies suggest
Rachel Foster et al (1994) -
Points out that what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences in the real world whereas a participant’s response during an experiment has no consequence
Evaluation (WEAKNESS) - Evidence Against Substitution Explanation
EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than others
Sutherland and Hayne (2001) -
Showed participants a video clip
When asked misleading questions, their recall was more accurate for central details of the event that for peripheral ones
Presumably the participant’s attention was focused on central features of the event and these memories were relatively resistant to misleading information
Suggests the original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, an outcome that is not predicted by the Substitution Explanation
Evaluation (WEAKNESS) - Evidence Challenging Memory Conformity
Evidence that post-event discussion alters EWT
Skagerberg and Wright (2008) -
Showed participants film clips, there was two versions
Participants discussed the clips in pairs (each seeing a different version)
They often reported a blend of what they had seen in the clips and what they had heard from their co-witnesses
Suggests that the memory is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than the result of memory conformity
Evaluation (WEAKNESS) - Demand Characteristics
Zaragoza and McCloskey (1989) -
Argued that participants may guess when asked a question they don’t know the answer to in order to appear more helpful and avoid letting the researcher down
