Misleading information

Question 1

who did research on leading questions

Answer 1

Lotus and Palmer (1974)

Question 2

what was the procedure of Lotus and Palmer (1974) research

Answer 2

• had 45 participants watch a film of car accidents and then asked them questions about the accident
• participants asked to describe how fast the car was travelling
• five groups given different verb in the critical questions
• hit , contacted, bumped, collided, smashed

Question 3

findings of Lotus and Palmer (1974) research

Answer 3

• mean estimates speed calculated for each group
• contacted = 31.8mph
  smashed = 40.5mph

Question 4

what is the response bias explanation

Answer 4

• wording of the question has no real effect on the participants memories but just influences how they decide to answer

Question 5

what is the substitution explanation

Answer 5

• wording of the leading question changes the participants memory of the film clip
• participants who heard smashed were more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none) than those who heard hit

Question 6

what are the 2 explanations for the effects of leading question

Answer 6

• response bias explanation
• substitution explanation

Question 7

who did research on post event discussion

Answer 7

• Gabbert et al (2003)

Question 8

what was Gabbert et al (2003) procedure

Answer 8

• participants in pairs watched a video of the same crime but filed form different points of views so saw things the other couldn’t
• participants then discussed what they saw and individually completed a test of recall

Question 9

2 explanations for the effects of post event discussion

Answer 9

1. memory contamination - co witness discussion means testimonies become distorted as they combine misinformation for other witnesses with their own memory
2. memory conformity - (Gabbet et al) witnesses go along with each other to win social approval and their memory is unchanged

Question 10

findings of Gabbert et al (2003) study

Answer 10

• 71% of participants 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 was 0%

Question 12

strength of misleading information

Answer 12

1. real world application
   - has important practical use in the criminal justice system
   - consequences of inaccurate EWT can be serious so police officers need to be careful about how they phrase their questions
   - psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials and explain the limits of EWT to judges

Question 13

limitations of misleading information

Answer 13

1. evidence against substitution
   - EWT is more accurate for come aspects of an event than others
   - Sutherland and Hayne (2001) showed participants a video clip and were later asked misleading questions
   - recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral ones
2. evidence challenging memory conformity
   - Skagerberg and Wright (2008) showed participant films clips
   - pairs showed different versions and discussed
   - reported a blend of the two versions suggesting the memory is distorted