Misleading information

• What is a leading question?

  A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer. For example, was the knife in the accused's left hand?- Suggests the answer is 'left hand'.
• What was the procedure for Loftus and Palmer (1974), researching leading questions?

  Loftus and Palmer(1974) arranged for participants (students) to watch film clips of car accidents. They were then asked a series of questions including 'How fast do you think the cars were going when they hit?' In different conditions, the word 'hit' was replaced with 'smashed', 'collided', 'bumped' or 'contacted'.
• What were the findings for Loftus and Palmer (1974), researching leading questions?

  • The mean estimated speed was calculated for each participant group.
  • The verb contacted resulted in a mean estimated speed of 31.8mph.
  • For the verb smashed, the mean was 40.5mph.
  • So the leading question biased the eyewitness recall of an event.
• Who did research on leading questions?

  Loftus and Palmer (1974)
• Why do leading questions affect eyewitness testimony?

  • The response-bias explanation suggests that the wording of the question has no real effect on the participants' memories, but just influences how they decide to answer. When a participant gets a leading question using the word 'smashed', this encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate.
• Why do leading question affect eyewitness testimony? (2)

  • Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a second experiment that supported the substitution experiment- the wording of a leading question actually changes participant's memory of the film clip.
  • Participants who originally heard 'smashed' later were more likely to report seeing broken glass (there were none), than those who heard 'hit'. The critical verb altered their memory of the incident.
• What is post-event discussion?

  Occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or with other people. This may influence the accuracy of each witness's recall of the event. May lead to eyewitness testimonies becoming contaminated.
• Who did research on post-event discussion?

  Gabbert and her colleagues (2003).
• What was the procedure for Gabbert and her colleagues (2003), researching post-event discussion?

  Gabbert and her colleagues (2003) studied participants in pairs. Each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view. This meant that each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not. For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.

  Both participants then discussed what they has seen before individually completing a test of recall.
• What were the findings for Gabbert et al (2003), researching post-event discussion experiment?

  • 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion.
  • The corresponding figure in a control group, where there was no discussion, was 0%.
  • Gabbert et al concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong. They called this memory conformity.
• What are the strengths for research into misleading information?

  • Experimental method: laboratory. Specific variables are controlled to ensure cause and reflect relationships
  • Replicable study to ensure reliability, standardised
• What is a weakness for research into misleading information (individual differences)?

  • Individual differences- Evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
  • For example Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found that people in age groups 18-25 and 33-45 were more accurate than people in the group 55-78 years.
  • However, all age groups were more accurate when identifying people of their own age group (called own age bias).
  • Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear less accurate but in fact this is not true.
• What are the two types of misleading factors that could lead to inaccurate eyewitness testimony?

  • Leading questions
  • Post-event discussion
• What is one strength for research into misleading information (real-life applications)?

  • Useful real-life applications- It has hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be very serious indeed.
  • For example, Loftus (1975) believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be very careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses.
  • Research into EWT is one area in which psychologists believe they can make an important positive difference to the lives of real people, for instance they can improve the way the legal system works.
• What is another weakness for research into misleading information (artificial tasks)?

  • A real limitation of Loftus and Palmer's study is that their participants watched film clips of car accidents. This is a very different experience from witnessing a real accident, mainly because such clips lack the stress of a real accident. There is some evidence that emotions can have an influence on memory.
  • So low ecological validity.
  • This is a limitation because studies that use such artificial tasks may tell us very little about how leading questions affect EWT in causes of real accidents or crimes. It could even be that researchers such as Loftus are too pessimistic about the accuracy of EWT- it may be more reliable than many studies suggest.
• What is another weakness for research into misleading information (demand characteristics)?

  • Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers participants give in lab studies of EWT are the result of demand characteristics. Participants usually do not want to let the researcher down, and want to appear helpful and attentive. So when they asked a question they don't know the answer to, they guess.
• What is another weakness misleading information affecting EWT?

  • Consequences of EWT- Foster et al (1994) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in the real world, but the same is not true in research studies.