Chapter 2.7 - Factors affecting EWT: Misleading information Flashcards
What is meant by eyewitness testimony?
The ability of people to remember the details of events, such as accidents and crimes, which they themselves have observed
What is meant by misleading information?
Incorrect information given to an eyewitness usually after the event
What is meant by leading question?
A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer
What is meant by post-event discussion?
Occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or with other people
Describe the procedure on the research on leading questions, Loftus and Palmer 1974
- 45 student participants watched film clips of car accidents and were asked questions about the accident
- The leading question asked participants to describe how fast the cars were travelling
- 5 groups given a different verb in the leading question
- Hit, contacted, bumped, collided, and smashed
- Mean estimated speed was calculated for each participant group
Describe the findings on the research on leading questions, Loftus and Palmer 1974
- Contacted resulted in a mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph
- Smashed resulted in a mean estimated speed of 40.5
What conclusion was made of the research on leading questions, Loftus and Palmer 1974
The leading questions biased the eyewitness’s recall of an event
Describe the procedure on the research on post-event discussion, Gabbert 2003
- Studied participants in pairs
- Each participant watched a video of the same crime but from different viewpoints
- Each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not, e.g. one could see the title of the book carried by someone
- Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall
Why do leading questions affect EWT?
Response-bias explanation: the wording of the question has no real effect on the memories, but just influences how they decide to answer
- Smashed encourages them to choose a higher speed
Substitution explanation: the wording of the question changes the memory of the film clip
- Those who heard ‘smashed’ were more likely to report seeing broken glass than those who heard ‘hit’
- The critical verb altered their memory of the incident
Describe the procedure on the research on post-event discussion, Gabbert 2003
- Participants were studies in pairs
- Each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view
- Each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not
- Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall
Describe the findings on the research on leading questions, Gabbert 2003
- 71% of the participants recalled aspects of the event that they had not seen but heard during the discussion
- In a control group with no discussion, 0% of the participants recalled aspects they hadn’t seen
- Evidence of memory conformity
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT?
- Memory contamination: discussing crimes causes eyewitness testimonies to alter or distort as they combine (mis)information from the memories of others, memory is changed
- Memory conformity: to win social approval or believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong, the actual memory is unchanged
Describe the findings on the research on post-event discussion, Gabbert 2003
- 71% of participants had mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion
- Compared to the 0% in the control group where there was no discussion
- Evidence of memory conformity
What is a strength of research into misleading information? (real-world application)
- Important practical uses in the criminal justice system
- Consequences of inaccurate EWT can be severe
- Psychologists can help to improve the way the legal system works:
-> protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
-> phrasing of questions by officers
-> psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials and explain the limits of EWT to juries
What is a counterpoint of research into misleading information? (real-world application)
- Practical applications may be affected by issues with research
- Loftus and Palmer’s participants watched the clips in a lab setting, which is different from witnessing a real event(more stressful)
- EWs remember the important consequences in the real world whereas participants know that their responses do not matter in the same way (less motivated to be accurate)
What is a limitation of research into misleading information?
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT?
Memory contamination: when co-witnesses discuss a crime with each other, their EWTs may become altered or distorted
- Combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
Memory conformity: witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong
- The actual memory is unchanged
What is a strength of research into misleading information? (real-world application)
- Has important practical uses in the criminal justice system
- Leading questions can have a distorting effect on memory so police officers need to ne cautious on how they phrase their questions
- Psychologists can be asked to act as expert witnesses and explain the limits of EWT to juries
- Improves the legal system and protects innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT
What is a counterpoint of research into misleading information? (real-world application)
- Loftus and Palmer’s participants watched the film clips in a lab which is much less stressful compared to when witnessing a real event
- Foster pointed out that eyewitnesses face consequences in the real world after recall whereas participants’ recall does not matter in the same way, so research may not be as accurate due to decreased motivation
What is a limitation of research into misleading information? (evidence against substitution)
- EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than for others
- Sutherland and Haynes 2001 showed participants a video clip
- When asked misleading questions, their recall was more accurate for central details than for peripheral ones
- Attention was focused on central features which were relatively resistant to misleading information
- Original memories weren’t distorted, an outcome not predicted by the substitution explanation
What is a limitation of research into misleading information? (evidence challenging memory conformity)
- Evidence that post-event discussion actually alters EWT
- 2008 showed participants film clips
- 2 versions: mugger had dark brown and light brown hair in each clip
- Participants discussed the clips in pairs, each seeing different versions
- They reported a mix of what they had seen and what they had heard: e.g. medium brown hair
- Memory is distorted through contamination by misleading PED rather than as the result of memory conformity
What is another evaluation of research into misleading information? (demand characteristics)
- Zaragoza and McCloskey 1989 argue that many answers given by participants in lab studies are due to demand characteristics
- Participants usually want to be helpful and don’t want to let the researcher down
- Guess when they are asked a question they don’t know the answer to
