Misleading Information

• Describe Loftus and Palmers procedure on Leading Questions:

  1. 45 students were asked to watch film clips of car crashes and then asked them about the incident
  2. The participants were then asked a leading question to describe how fast the car was going
  3. There were five groups of Ps and each were given a different verb in the question
  4. One group had hit and others had contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
• Describe the findings of Loftus and Palmers research:

  • The mean estimated speed was calculated for each group
  • The verb contacted had a mean estimate of 31.8 mph
  • The verb smashed had a mean estimate of 40.5 mph
• Why do leading questions affect Eye Witness Testimony?

  • Response Bias - Wording of question does not affect the Ps memories but just influences how they answer the question e.g. the verb smashed encourages the Ps to give a higher estimate
  • Substitution Explanation - Wording of leading question does change Ps memory of film clip. This is shown when Ps who were given the verb smashed reported that there was broken glass
• Describe Gabbert's procedure into post-event discussion:

  1. Studied participants in pairs
  2. Each Ps watched a video of the same crime but filmed from different points of view - Each Ps could see elements the other could not
  3. Both Ps discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall
• Describe Gabbert's findings:

  • 71% of the Ps mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion
  • In a control group where there was no discussion the corresponding figure was 0%
  • Evidence of memory conformity
• Why does post-event discussion affect EWT?

  • Memory Contamination - When co-witnesses discuss a crime their EWT may have become altered or distorted. This is because they combine information from other witnesses to their own memory
  • Memory Conformity - Witnesses often go along with each other either to win social approval or because they believe they are wrong - memory is not actually changed
• Evaluation - Real World Application:

  Practical uses in the criminal justice system - consequences of EWT can be very serious. Police need to be very careful when constructing their questions when interviewing eye witnesses

  COUNTERPOINT - Practical uses may be affected by research:

  Within Loftus and Palmers research the Ps watched film clips in a lab which is very different to experiencing the real deal so EWT may be more reliable than research suggests
• Limitation of Loftus and Palmer's research - Ethical Issues:

  Deceived their participants- ethical issues, they asked about broken glass in their second study even though there was none, however this was necessary to reduce demand characteristics.
• Limitation of Substitution Explanation - Contradicting Evidence:

  • Sutherland and Hayne
  • Found recall was better for central details compared to peripheral ones
  • Original memories for central details are more likely to be unaltered
• Limitation of memory conformity explanation - Contradicting Evidence:

  Research showed one group of participants a mugger with light brown hair and the other was shown dark brown hair. They discussed and participants recalled a blend of what they had seen. Suggests only memory contamination not conformity