factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information Flashcards
misleading information
incorrect information given to the eyewitness usually after the event
types of misleading information
- leading questions
- post-event discussion
leading questions
a question which suggests a certain answer
post-event discussion
- when there’s more than 1 witnesss and they discuss what they have seen with each other or other people
- influences the accuracy of their own recall of the event
research on leading questions - Loftus & Palmer (1974) = procedure
- 45 ppts watched 7 film clips of car accidents and then gave them about the questionnaire
- 5 conditions
- in the questionnaire there was a leading question
research on leading questions - Loftus & Palmer (1974) = findings
Contacted = 31.8mph
Collided = 39.3mph
Bumped =38.1mph
Hit=34.0mph
Smashed=40.8 mph
Why do leading questions affect EWT - response-bias explanation ?
the wording of the question has no real effect on the ppts memories but just influences how they decide to answer
Why do leading questions affect EWT - substitution explanation ?
- Loftus & Palmer (1974) = conducted a 2nd experiment which supported this
- wording of the question changes the ppts memory of the film clip
= when the word smashed was heard they were more likely to report broken glass than those who heard ‘hit’
Research on Post-event discussion - Gabbert (2003) : procedure
- studied ppts in pairs
- each ppt watched a video of the same crime from different povs
- each ppt could see elements others couldn’t
- eg = one could see a book carried by a young woman
- they after discussed with their pair what they had seen and then did a recall test
Research on Post-event discussion - Gabbert (2003) : findings
- 71% of ppts recalled aspects that they didn’t see but picked up after a discussion
- concluded that this was as ppts go along with each other for social approval or because they believe they are right ( memory conformity)
evaluation of misleading information: real world application ( strength)
- great practical use in the real world
- police needs to be careful about the phrasing of questions during interviews
- psychologists can improve the legal system by recommending that leading q’s & post-event discussion aren’t used or kept to a minimum
- psychologists can appear in court as an expert witnesses - to see if anyone has been exposed to any misleading information
evaluation of misleading information: effects of artificial studies (weakness)
- practical application may be affected by issues with research
- watching clips in a lab is different to witnessing a car accident ( less real and traumatising)
- there aren’t any consequences in the lab
- suggests that researchers (Loftus) are too pessimistic about the effects of misleading info
evaluation of misleading information: evidence against substitution (weakness)
- substitution explanation is more accurate for some parts than for others
- Sutherland & Hayne (2001) = showed a video clip and when they were asked misleading questions recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral
- their attention was focused on central feature and they were resistant to misleading information
- suggests original memories for central details survived & not distorted ( not predicted by substitution)
evaluation of misleading information: evidence challenging memory conformity (weakness)
- post-event discussion changes EWT
- Skagerberg & Wright (2008) = showed ppts film clips ( two versions - one light brown and other dark brown hair
- ppts discussed the clios in pairs and reported a blend of the 2 versions ( heard and saw)
- suggest memory is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion
evaluation of misleading information: demand characteristics (weakness)
- show that misleading information causes EWT as they can control variable
- responses given may be due to demand characteristics
- ppts want to be helpful = don’t know answer and guess it
