EWT: misleading information

• eyewitness testimonies:

  • ability to remember details of events such as accidents or crimes which they have observed
• misleading information:

  • incorrect information given to witness usually after event
  • comes in form of misleading questions + post event discussions
• leading questions procedure (loftus + palmer):

  • 45 participants watched videos of car accidents + asked questions - critical question : bout how fast were they going when they hit eachother?
  • 5 groups given different verb for question: hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
• leading questions findings:

  • mean estimate speed was calculated for each speed
  • speed estimates varied, leading questions biased recall
  • smashed = 40.5mph, contacted = 31.8mph
• response bias explanation - misleading questions:

  • wording has no real effect on memory, just influences how they answer
  • participants encouraged to estimate higher speed when word smashed is used
• substitution explanation - misleading questions:

  • question alters memory of participants
  • more likely to recall seeing broken glass when smashed was used
• post event discussion (gabbert et al):

  • studied participants in pairs
  • each pair watched same video from different point of views - each participant saw elements the others didnt
  • discussed what they saw before completing recall test
• post event discussion findings:

  • 71% mistakenly recalled aspects of event they didnt see but picked up in discussion
  • control group = 0%
• memory contamination - post event discussion:

  • testimonies altered/distorted following discussions
  • combine info from other witnesses with their own memories
• memory conformity - post event discussion:

  • witnesses go along with others, either to win social approval or they believe other witnesses are right
  • actual memory is unchanged
• EVALUATION: real world application

  • consequences can be serious, leading questions have distorting effect on memory - led to police changing questioning techniques (cognitive interview)
  • cognitive interview - provides more accurate info than standard interview (kohnken et al)
  • psychologists can improve way legal system works - protects innocent people from faulty convictions
• EVALUATION: low ecological validity

  • loftus + palmer - watched film clips in lab, different from in real life - may not take study seriously, anxiety level may not reflect response to accident
  • foster et al - if they were watching real robbery + thought it may influence trial, identification = more accurate + yuille +cutshall - people gave accurate reports of armed robbery despite 2 leading questions
  • misleading info may have less influence on accounts
• EVALUATION: demand characteristics

  • zaragoza + mccloskey - argue demand characteristics more likely when participants want to appear helpful or let researcher down
  • participants may guess when asked question they dont know
  • conclusions drawn from lab based research may lack validity, dont reflect real life behaviour or recall