Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Misleading Information Flashcards
What is a leading question in the context of eyewitness testimony (EWT)?
A question that suggests or influences a witness’s answer, potentially distorting their memory of the event.
Who studied the effect of leading questions on EWT and in what year?
Loftus and Palmer in 1974.
What was the procedure of Loftus and Palmer’s first experiment?
45 students watched film clips of car accidents and were asked questions about the speed of the cars, using different verbs like “hit,” “smashed,” “bumped,” “collided,” and “contacted.”
What were the findings of Loftus and Palmer’s first experiment?
The verb used affected speed estimates; “contacted” led to an average of 31.8 mph, while “smashed” led to 40.5 mph—showing that leading questions biased recall.
What is the response-bias explanation for the effect of leading questions?
The wording influences how a person answers but doesn’t actually change their memory.
What is the substitution explanation for the effect of leading questions?
Leading questions actually alter the memory itself, as shown when participants who heard “smashed” were more likely to falsely remember broken glass.
What was the aim of Gabbert et al.’s (2003) study on post-event discussion?
To examine how discussing an event with another witness can affect memory recall.
What was the procedure of Gabbert et al.’s study?
Pairs of participants watched the same crime from different angles and then discussed the event before recalling details individually.
What did Gabbert et al. find?
71% of participants recalled information they had not seen but heard from their co-witness. In the control group (no discussion), the figure was 0%.
What is memory contamination in EWT?
When co-witnesses mix misinformation from others with their own memories, altering their recall.
What is memory conformity in EWT?
When a witness agrees with others’ accounts to gain social approval or because they believe others are correct, even if their own memory is different.
strength of MISLEADING INFORMATION
One strength of research into misleading information is that it has important practical uses in the criminal justice system.
The consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious. Loftus (1975)
believes 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.
This 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.
limitation (1) of MISLEADING INFORMATION
One limitation of the substitution explanation is that EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than for others.
For example, Rachel Sutherland and Harlene Hayne (2001) showed participants a video clip. When participants were later asked misleading questions, their recall was more accurate for central details of the event than for peripheral ones. Presumably the participants’ attention was focused on central features of the event and these memories were relatively resistant to misleading information.
This suggests that the original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, an outcome that is not predicted by the substitution explanation.
limitation (2) of MISLEADING INFORMATION
Another limitation of the memory conformity explanation is evidence that post-event discussion actually alters EWT.
Elin Skagerberg and Daniel Wright (2008) showed their participants film clips. There were two versions, e.g. a mugger’s hair was dark brown in one but light brown in the other. Participants 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 had heard from the co-witness, but a ‘blend’ of the two (e.g. a common answer to the hair question was not light brown’ or dark brown’ but ‘medium brown).
This suggests that the memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading post-event discussion, rather than the result of memory conformity.
What was the procedure of Gabbert et al.’s study?
Pairs of participants watched the same crime from different angles and then discussed the event before recalling details individually.
What did Gabbert et al. find?
71% of participants recalled information they had not seen but heard from their co-witness. In the control group (no discussion), the figure was 0%.
What is memory contamination in EWT?
When co-witnesses mix misinformation from others with their own memories, altering their recall.
What is memory conformity in EWT?
When a witness agrees with others’ accounts to gain social approval or because they believe others are correct, even if their own memory is different.
strength of MISLEADING INFORMATION
One strength of research into misleading information is that it has important practical uses in the criminal justice system.
The consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious. Loftus (1975)
believes 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.
This 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.
