Key Study - Misleading information on accuracy of eyewitness testimony ( Experiment 1 ):
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
45 participants split into 5 groups
Shown a clip of a car accident and asked "How fast were the cars going when they '_' into each other?"
Verbs were smashed, collided, hit, bumped or contacted
Pts given smashed gave an average speed of 40.8, pts given contacted said 31.8
Demonstrates how leading questions affects the response
Key Study - Misleading information on accuracy of eyewitness testimony (Experiment 2 ) :
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Aim: to find out if leading questionsbias a participant's response or actually cause information to be altered before it's stored
150 participants split into 3 groups shown a clip of a car accident
Same as first experiment, verbs used were hit & smashed, & also a control group
A week later, participants were asked if there was any broken glass
From the smashed group, 16 said yes. In the hit group, 7 people said yes
Leading questions change the actual memory
Types of misleading information:
Leading questions
Post-event discussion
Post event discussion affect accuracy of eyewitness testimony:
Post event discussion may contaminate eyewitness memory of an event
Conformity effect - participants recollection influenced by discussion with others
Repeat interviewing - each time a witness is interviewed there is the possibility that the interviewer may use leading questions or their comments affect their recollection
Accuracy of eyewitness testimony - misleading information AO3:
✅ Real world application - highlights problems of eyewitnesses as evidence. Is the largest factor contributing to false convictions
❌ Individual differences - elderly people are more likely to be affected by misleading information
❌ Artificial - in real life, responses are more accurate as participants are emotionally aroused & take it seriously - lack of ecological validity
Accuracy of eyewitness testimony - misleading information AO3: