AO3

• The results of Gabbert et al. also have questionable ecological validity. The participants in the co- witness condition witnessed different perspectives of the same crime, as would typically be the case in real-life crimes. However, as in Loftus and Palmer's research, these witnesses knew they were taking part in an experiment and were more likely to have paid close attention to the details of the video clip. Therefore, these results do not reflect everyday examples of crime, where witnesses may be exposed to less information.
• Gabbert et al. tested two different populations, university students and older adults, and found little difference between these two conditions. Therefore, her results provide good population validity and allow us to conclude that post-event discussion affects younger and older adults in a similar way.
• ■ Although Gabbert et al.'s results provide an insight into the effect of post-event discussion on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, we are unable to conclude why the distortion occurs. The distortion could be the result of poor memory, where people assimilate new information into their own accounts of the event and are unable to distinguish between what they have seen and what they have heard. On the other hand, it could be that the distortion occurs due to conformity and the social pressure from the co-witness. Further research is required to answer this question.