Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: Misleading information

Question 1

What is an eyewitness testimony?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Misleading information can affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. What is misleading information?

Answer 2

Incorrect information given to the eyewitnesses usually after the event

Question 3

Which two types of misleading information is a student required to recall in the exam?

Answer 3

Leading questions and post-event discussion

Question 4

What is a leading question?

Answer 4

A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer. For example, ‘was the knife in the accused’s left hand?’. This suggests the answer is ‘left hand’.

Question 5

Who conducted research into the effects of leading questions on the accuracy of EWT?

Answer 5

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Question 6

How did Loftus and Palmer conduct their research into leading questions and their effect on the accuracy of EWT?

Answer 6

Loftus and Palmer arranged for participants (students) to watch film clips of car accidents and then gave them questions about the accident. In the critical question (a leading question) participants were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’

This is a leading question because the verb ‘hit’ suggests the speed the car was going.

Question 7

How many groups of participants did Loftus and Palmer have in their study?

Answer 7

There were five groups of participants. Each group was given a different verb in the critical question.

Question 8

Each group had a different verb in the critical question. Which five verbs were used by Loftus and Palmer?

Answer 8

• Hit
• Contacted
• Bumped
• Collided
• Smashed

Question 9

Loftus and Palmer later calculated the mean estimated speed for each participant group. What was the mean estimated speed for the verb ‘smashed’?

Answer 9

For the verb smashed, the mean estimated speed was 40.5mph.

Question 10

Loftus and Palmer later calculated the mean estimated speed for each participant group. What was the mean estimated speed for the verb ‘contacted’?

Answer 10

For the verb contacted, the mean estimated speed was 31.8mph.

Question 11

Leading questions are thought to affect the accuracy of EWT. Which two explanations support this?

Answer 11

1. The response-bias explanation

2. The substitution explanation

Question 12

What is the response-bias explanation?

Answer 12

The response-bias explanation suggests that the wording of the question has no real effect on the participants’ memories, but just influences how they decide to answer. When a participant gets a leading question using the word ‘smashed’, this encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate.

Question 13

What is the substitution explanation?

Answer 13

Loftus and Palmer conducted a second experiment that supported the substitution explanation. This suggests that the wording of a leading question actually changes the participant’s memory of the film clip. This was demonstrated because participants who originally heard ‘smashed’ later were more likely to report seeing broken glass than those who heard ‘hit’. The critical verb altered their memory of the incident.

Question 14

What is post-event discussion?

Answer 14

PED occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or with other people. This may influence the accuracy of each witness’s recall of the event.

Question 15

How does post-event discussion negatively impact the accuracy of EWT?

Answer 15

When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may be contaminated. This is because they combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories.

Question 16

Who conducted research into the effects of post-event discussion on the accuracy of EWT?

Answer 16

Fiona Gabbert and her colleagues (2003)

Question 17

How did Gabbert and her colleagues investigate the effects of post-event discussion on the accuracy of EWT?

Answer 17

Gabbert and her colleagues studied participants in pairs. Each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view. This meant that each participant could see elements in the same event that the other could not. Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individual completing a test of recall.

Question 18

What percentage of Gabbert’s participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion?

Answer 18

71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion.

Question 19

What percentage of Gabbert’s control group mistakenly recalled aspects of the event?

Answer 19

0% of the control group mistakenly recalled aspects of the event. The control group were not given the opportunity to discuss what they had seen with other participants.

Question 20

What was concluded by Gabbert et al?

Answer 20

Gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe other witnesses are right. They called this ‘memory conformity’.