factors effecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony- misleading information Flashcards
who conducted research on leading questions
Lotus and Palmer (1974)
what was the procedure and finding of research on leading questions
Procedure: arranged 45 participants (students) to watch film clips of car accidents and then asked questions about the accidents. In the critical question (a leading question) they were asked to describe how fast were the cars going when they hit each other. 5 groups and each group was given a different verb of hit e.g. bumped, contacted, collided, smashed.
Findings: the mean estimated speed was conducted for each group. Contacted resulted in 31.8 mph, smashed resulted in 40.5mph,
why do leading questions effect EWT
when a participant gets a leading question they are encouraged to answer differently. Liftus and Palmer conducted a second experiment (1974) that supported the substitution explanation which proposes that the wording of a leading question leads to participants memory of the film clips being changed. Participants who heard the word smashed were later more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none) than those who heard hit
explain the research on post-event discussion
Procedure: Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs. Each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view. So each participant could see elements of crime the others could not. E.g one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman. Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
Findings: 71% of participants mistaking recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion. The corresponding figure in a control group where there was no discussion was 0%.
why does post-event discussion affect EWT
one explanation is memory contamination. their testimonies may become altered or distorted. This is because they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Another explanation is memory conformity: Gabbet et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe other witnesses are right and they are wrong. Unlike with memory contamination, the actual memory is unchanged.
