Memory- factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information

Memory- factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information

1. Leading questions

   • Loftus and Palmer, 1974
     • Asked participants to watch a video of a car crash
     • They then asked questions about the crash, with one leading question
     • 'How fast were the cars going when they ___________________ into each other?'
       • In the gap, different verbs were used
         • Hit
         • Smashed
           • Average speed: 40.5mph
         • Bumped
         • Collided
         • Contacted
           • Average speed: 31.8mph
   • Response bias explanation
     • Wording has no effect on memories, but affects how participants choose to respond
   • Substitution explanation
     • Wording changed participants' memory of the crash
       • Participants who heard 'smashed' were more likely to also report broken glass, even though there was none

2. Post event discussion

   • Gabbert, 2003
     • Participants all watched a video of the same crime, but from different perspectives. This meant they could see different elements of the crime scene.
     • The participants then discussed what they had seen.For example, one participant could see the title of a book being carried while the other could not
     • 71% of participants reported elements of the crime that they had not seen
       • No participants in a control group in which there was no post event discussion reported anything they had not seen

3. Evaluation

   • Real life application
     • Research into misleading information has useful application in EWTs
       • Useful for the legal system
   • Artificial tasks
     • The tasks given to participants were not real- they watched film clips. Were they actually there, their response may have been different
   • Individual differences
     • Age
       • Elderly people are less accurate in EWTs
   • Demand characteristics
     • Want to be more helpful to the researcher