factors affecting the accuracy of EWT - misleading info

Question 1

describe research on leading questions - procedure

Answer 1

–> loftus & palmer (1974)
- arranged for 45 ppts. to watch a film clips of car accidents & then asked them questions ab. the accidents
- in the critical question, ppts. were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling
- 5 grps. & each grp. had diff. verb in critical question:
–> hit, contacted, collided, bumped & smashed

Question 2

describe research on leading questions - findings

Answer 2

• mean estimated s[eed was calculated for each grp.
• verb ‘contacted’ = mean est. speed 31.8mph
• verb ‘smashed’ = mean est. speed 40.5mph

Question 3

why do leading q. affect EWT

Answer 3

• response-bias explanation = wording of q. has no real effect on memories but just influences answer
• substitution explanation = wording of a leading q. changes ppts. memory of film clip –> supported by loftus & palmers 2nd experiment 1974

Question 4

describe loftus & palmer’s 2nd experiment (1974)

Answer 4

• supported the substitution explanation
• ppts. who’d originally heard smashed were later more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none) than those who heard hit
• critical verb had altered memory of incident

Question 5

describe research on post-event discussion - procedure

Answer 5

–> gabbert et. al (2003)
- studied ppts. in pairs
- each ppt. watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from diff. points of view
- meant each ppt. could see elements of the event the other could not
- both then discussed what they had seen before individually completing recall test

Question 6

describe research on post-event discussion - findings

Answer 6

• found 71% of ppts. mistakenly recalled aspects of event they didn’t see but had picked up in discussion
• corresponding figure in control grp. was 0% (no discussion)
  = evidence of memory conformity

Question 7

why does post-event discussion affect EWT

Answer 7

• memory contamination = co-witnesses to a crime discuss with each other, their EWT become altered/distorted –> combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
• memory conformity = gabbert et. al concluded the witnesses often go along with each other - to win social approval or they believe other witness is right –> actual memory unchanged

Question 8

evaluation of factors affecting the accuracy of EWT - misleading info

Answer 8

+)
P: research has important practical uses in criminal justice system (real world appl.)
E: consequences of inaccurate EWT are very serious. loftus (1975) believes leading q. can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers must be careful how they phrase their q. when interviewing eyewitnesses. psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials & explain limits of EWT to juries
T: shows psychologists can help improve the way the legal system works, esp. by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
-) COUNTERPOINT
P: practical applications of EWT may be affected by issues with research.
E: eg. loftus & palmer’s ppts. watched film clips in a lab, very diff. from experiencing a real event (eg. less stressful). also, foster et. al (1994) points out that what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences in the real world, but ppts. responses in research don’t matter in the same way (less motivated for accuracy)
T: suggests researchers eg. loftus/palmer are too pessimistic abt. effects of misleading info - EWT may be more dependable than studies suggest

-)
P: (of substitution explanation) EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than others
E: eg. sutherland & hayne (2001) showed ppts. a video clip. when ppts. were later asked misleading q, their recall was more accurate for central details of the event than peripheral ones. presumably the ppts. attention was focused on central features of the event & these memories were relatively resistant to misleading info
T: suggests the original memories for central details survived & weren’t distorted, an outcome that isn’t predicted by substitution explanation

-)
P: (memory conformity explanation) evidence that post-event discussion actually alters EWT
E: skagerberg & wright (2008) showed their ppts. film clips. there were 2 versions eg. muggers hair light or dark brown. ppts. discussed clips in pairs, each saw diff. version. often didn’t report what they had seen in the clips or what they’d heard from the co-witness but a ‘blend’.
T: suggests the memory itself is distorted via contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than memory conformity