Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Misleading information Flashcards
describe eyewitness testimony (EWT)
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 info and anxiety
describe misleading information
incorrect information given to an eyewitness usually after the event (hence also called post-event information)
it can take many forms, such as leading questions and post-event discussion between co-witnesses and/or other people
describe a leading question
a question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer
for example, ‘was the knife in his left hand’ leads a person to think that is where the knife was
describe post-event discussion (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 witnesses recall of the event
describe research on leading questions
loftus and palmer (1974) arranged for 45 ppts to watch film clips of car accidents then asked them questions about the accident
in the critical question (a leading question) ppts were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling
each group was given a different verb in the critical q, either; hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
contacted resulted in a mean estimate speed of 31.8mph, smashed 40.5mph
leading question biased the eyewitness’s recall of an event
why do leading questions affect EWT
the response-bias explanation suggests that the wording of the q has no real effect on ppts memories, but influences how they decide to answer
loftus and palmer conducted a second experiment that supported the substitution explanation, which proposes that the wording of a leading q changes the ppts memory of the clip
shown through ppts who heard smashed were more likely to report broken glass than those who heard hit
critical verb altered their memory of the incident
describe research on post-event discussion
gabbert et al (2003) studied pairs of ppts who watched a video of the same crime from different povs
this meant each ppt could see elements in the event that the other could not
both ppts then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall
found that 71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion, control group with no discussion 0%
evidence of memory conformity
why does post-event discussion affect EWT
memory contamination - when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other their EWT may become altered or distorted, they combine information from others with their own
memory conformity - gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, normative or informational, the actual memory is unchanged
what are the important practical uses in the CJS from research into misleading info (strength)
loftus believed that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to 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
shows that psychologists can improve the way the legal system works, especially by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions
what is a counterpoint of the practical applications (limitation)
application may be affected by issues with research
loftus and palmers ppts watched clips in a lab, a very different experience from witnessing a real event
foster et al. point out that what eyewitnesses remember has important consequences in the real world, but ppts responses in research do not matter in the same way
suggests researchers are too pessimistic about the effects of misleading info, EWT may be more dependable than studies suggest
what is the evidence against substitution (limitation)
EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than for others
sutherland and hayne (2001) showed ppts a clip, when later asked misleading qs, their recall was more accurate for central details of the event rather than for peripheral ones
presumably the ppts attention was focused on key features of the event and these were resistant to misleading info
suggests that the original memories for central details survived and were not distorted
what is the evidence challenging memory conformity (limitation)
skagerberg and wright (2008) showed ppts two versions of a robbery clip
ppts discussed the clips in pairs, each having seen different versions, they often did not report what they had seen in the clips or what they heard from their co-witness, but a ‘blend’ of the two
suggests that the memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than memory conformity
