C2 - Eyewitness testimony: Misleading information

Question 1

Loftus & Palmer - Leading questions

Answer 1

Procedure:
- 45 pts watched film clips of car accidents & answered questions about speed. Critical question was ‘about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other’
- 5 groups of pts, each given different verb in critical question: hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed

Findings:
- Verb ‘contacted’ produced mean speed of 31.8mph, verb ‘smashed’ produced 40.5mph
- Leading question biased eyewitness recall, smashed suggests faster speed

Question 2

Why do leading questions affect EWT

Answer 2

Response bias - Wording has no effect on memory, but influences answer
Subsitution - Wording affects memory, interferes with original memory, distorting accuracy

Question 3

Gabbert et al - Post-event discussion

Answer 3

Procedure:
- Paired pts watched video of same crime, filmed so each pts saw elements in event that other couldn’t
- Both discussed what they saw on video before completeing individual recall test

Findings:
- 71% wrongly recalled aspects of event they didn’t see but heard in discussion
- In control group, no discussion & no errors
- Evidence of memory conformity

Question 4

Why does post-event info affect EWT

Answer 4

Memory contamination - When co-witnesses discuss a crime, they mix info from others with own memories
Memory conformity - Go along with each other to win social approval / think other witness is right

Question 5

Evaluations of misleading infomation (SLL)

Answer 5

S - Real-world application in criminal justice system
L - Evidence challenging substitution explanation
L - Evidence doesn’t support memory conformity

Question 6

S - Real-world application in criminal justice system

Answer 6

• Serious consequences of inaccurate EWT, Loftus says police should be more careful phrasing questions
• Psychologists can be expert witnesses in trials & explain limits of EWT to juries
• Psychologists improve legal system & protect innocent from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT

Question 7

L - Evidence challenging substituion explanation

Answer 7

• Sutherland & Hayne found pts recalled central details of event better than peripheral despite misleading Q’S
• This is because their attention focused on central features & memories resistant to misleading info
• So, original memory survived & wasn’t distorted, which the substituion explanation doesn’t predict

Question 8

L - Evidence doesn’t suppot memory conformity

Answer 8

• Skagerberg & Wright’s pts discussed film clips they saw (mugger had dark or light brown hair)
• Pts recalled blend of what they saw & heard from co-witness, rather than dark or light
• Suggests memory itself distorted through contamination by PED & not result of conformity