Factors Affecting EWT - Misleading Info Flashcards
(21 cards)
What is eyewitness testimony?
A person’s account of an event they have witnessed, such as a crime or accident. It is used as evidence in court, but research shows that memory is not always accurate and can be distorted by external influences.
What is Misleading Information?
Misleading information refers to incorrect or distorted information given to an eyewitness after the event. It can influence how events are recalled and lead to inaccuracies in testimony.
What are the 2 types of misleading information?
-Leading questions
-Post-event discussion (PED)
What is a leading question?
A leading question is a question that is worded to suggest a particular answer or contains presuppositions that can influence a witness’s recall.
Loftus and Palmer (1974) – Leading Questions
Aim: To investigate whether the phrasing of a question can influence participants’ memory recall, specifically their speed estimates of a car crash — testing whether leading questions distort eyewitness testimony.
Procedure:
-Sample: 45 American university students
-Design: Independent measures design
-Stimuli: Participants watched 7 short film clips (5–30 seconds each) of car traffic accidents.
-After each video, they were asked a series of questions, including a critical leading question:
-“About how fast were the cars going when they ___ into each other?”
-The blank was filled with one of five verbs, which varied in emotional intensity:
-Smashed
-Collided
-Bumped
-Hit
-Contacted
-Each participant was randomly allocated to one of the five conditions (9 participants per group).
Findings:
Highest speed reported was in the smashed condition - 40.5 mph
Slowest speed reported was in the contacted condition - 31.8 mph
Conclusion:
-The wording of a question can influence a witness’s memory.
-This supports the idea that eyewitness testimony is reconstructive — it can be distorted by post-event information.
-Participants may have been influenced by the verb’s connotations, which shaped their memory of the crash’s severity.
Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974)
+ High control
- Low ecological validity
+ Practical applications
- Demand characteristics
- Sample bias
Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974) - + High Control (Strength – High Internal Validity)
P: The study was conducted under controlled, laboratory conditions.
E: Participants watched the same video clips and were asked structured questions with only one variable manipulated (the verb in the critical question).
E: This high control over extraneous variables allows researchers to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the wording of the question and the memory distortion, giving the study high internal validity.
Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974) - - Sample Bias
P: The study only used American college students.
E: These individuals may not represent the general population in terms of age, driving experience, or cultural context.
E: This reduces the population validity of the study, meaning we cannot confidently generalise the findings to other groups (e.g., older adults or non-Western populations).
Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974) - - Low Ecological Validity (Weakness – Artificial Task)
P: The study lacked realism as participants watched video recordings rather than witnessing a real-life event.
E: In real-life accidents, witnesses experience emotional arousal and stress, which can affect memory differently.
E: Watching a video of a crash does not replicate the emotional impact or complexity of witnessing an actual accident, reducing ecological validity and limiting the generalisability of the findings.
Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974) - + Practical Applications
P: The findings have significant real-world applications in the legal and criminal justice system.
E: The study shows that leading questions can distort memory, which has led to improved police interview techniques such as the Cognitive Interview, which avoids suggestive questioning.
E: This means the research has high external value, as it contributes to reforms that help protect against wrongful convictions based on unreliable eyewitness testimony.
Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974) - - Demand Characteristics
P: Participants may have guessed the aim of the study and altered their behaviour accordingly.
E: Since the critical question was so clearly manipulated (using very different verbs), participants might have tried to please the experimenter or give consistent answers, not based on true memory.
E: This introduces demand characteristics, which can undermine the internal validity of the study.
What is Post-Event Discussion (PED)?
Post-event discussion occurs when multiple witnesses talk about what they saw after an event. Their memories may become contaminated through the introduction of new or misleading information, leading to memory conformity.
Gabbert et al. (2003) – Post-Event Discussion
Aim: To investigate the effect of post-event discussion (PED) on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (EWT), and whether co-witnesses influence each other’s memory of an event.
Procedure:
-Participants: 60 students from the University of Aberdeen and 60 older adults from the local community (total = 120).
-Design: Independent groups design — participants were either in a control group or a co-witness group.
-Stimuli: Each participant watched a video of the same crime (a girl stealing money from a wallet), but from different perspectives.
-Each video showed some unique items (e.g., only one participant saw the actual theft).
-Experimental Condition:
-Pairs watched different versions of the same video.
-After viewing, they were allowed to discuss the event freely before each recalling what they saw individually.
-Control Condition:
-Participants watched the same video alone, with no discussion, then recalled what they saw.
Findings:
-71% of participants in the co-witness group recalled information they had not actually seen but had picked up during discussion (e.g., claiming they saw the girl steal the wallet when their video did not show this).
-In the control group, where no discussion took place, 0% reported unseen details.
Conclusion:
-The study provides strong evidence that post-event discussion can lead to memory conformity.
-Eyewitness memory can be altered by information shared by others, leading to memory contamination or false memories.
-This has serious implications for the validity of EWT, especially when witnesses are allowed to communicate before giving official statements.
Evaluation points for Gabbert et al. (2003)
+ Real-world applications
+ High ecological validity
- Demand characteristics
- Sample bias
- Lab setting limitations
Evaluation points for Gabbert et al. (2003) - + Real-world applications
P: The study highlights how post-event discussion can distort eyewitness memory.
E: 71% of participants mistakenly recalled details they didn’t see due to discussion.
E: This is important for the criminal justice system because police must be careful to keep witnesses separate to avoid memory contamination.
Evaluation points for Gabbert et al. (2003) - + High ecological validity
P: Using videos of real-life events and allowing natural discussion improves ecological validity.
E: Participants discussed the event as real witnesses might do.
E: This makes the findings more applicable to real eyewitness situations than artificial lab tasks.
Evaluation points for Gabbert et al. (2003) - - Demand characteristics
P: Participants may have guessed the purpose of the study and altered their answers accordingly.
E: Knowing they were in a memory study, they might have tried to conform or be helpful.
E: This can reduce the internal validity because responses may not reflect natural memory processes.
Evaluation points for Gabbert et al. (2003) - - Sample bias
P: The study used university students and older adults from one area.
E: These groups may not represent all eyewitnesses, e.g., younger children or other cultures.
E: Results may not generalize to the wider population, limiting population validity.
Evaluation points for Gabbert et al. (2003) - - Lab Setting Limitations
P: Although videos are more realistic than slides or words, they are still not the same as witnessing a real crime.
E: Participants knew it was a study, which may affect emotional involvement and memory.
E: This may limit how far the results can be applied to real-world eyewitness memory under stress.
What is memory conformity?
Changing recall to match others due to social pressure or doubt
What is memory distortion?
Memory changed by post-event info
