The accuracy of eyewitness testimony : Misleading Information

Question 1

What is misleading information ?

Answer 1

• Information that alters an eyewitness’ memory of a crime

Question 2

How many examples of misleading information is there?

Answer 2

2

Question 3

What are the 2 types of misleading information?

Answer 3

• Leading questions
• Post-event discussion

Question 4

What is a leading question?

Answer 4

• A leading question is a question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer
• For example “The robber left in a black car, didn’t he?”

Question 5

Examples of research into leading questions?

Answer 5

• Loftus & Palmer (1974)
• Showed 45 students seven films of different road traffic accidents
• After watching each film, the participants were given a questionnaire
• There was one critical question
• The critical question was “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
• One group of participants were given this question
• Another four groups of participants were given the verbs “smashed”, “collided”, “bumped” or “contacted” in place of the verb “hit”
• This critical question was a leading question because the way it was phrased suggested a certain answer
• The average speed estimate was calculated for each group
• It was found that the group given the word “smashed” gave the highest speed estimate (average 40.8mph) whereas the group given the word “contacted” gave the lowest speed estimate (average 31.8mph)
  -Loftus & Palmer concluded that leading questions can have a significant impact on the accuracy of EWT

Question 6

What is post-event discussion?

Answer 6

• Post-event discussion (PED) occurs when there is more than one eyewitness and they discuss what they saw
• This may influence the accuracy of each individual’s recall of the crime

Question 7

Research into post-event discussion

Answer 7

• Research into post-event discussion
  Gabbert et al. (2003)
• Studied participants in pairs
• One participant in each pair watched a film of a crime
• The other participant in each pair watched a film of the same crime, but filmed from a different angle
• This meant that each participant could see elements of the crime that their partner could not see
• There were two conditions
• Discussion condition: Participants were able to discuss what they had seen with their partner before individually completing a recall test
• Non-discussion condition: Participants were not able to discuss what they had seen with their partner before individually completing a recall test
• It was found that 71% of participants in the discussion group recalled aspects of the crime that they had not seen in the video but had picked up in the discussion
• Gabbert et al. concluded that post-event discussion can have a significant impact on the accuracy of EWT