MISLEADING INFORMATION

• Research on leading questions

  LOFTUS + PALMER (1974)

  • 45 students - car accident clip + interviewed
  • Q - " How fast were the cars going when they _ each other?"
  • 5 groups of pps , 1 had " contacted " then fastest = " smashed "
• Is the leading question effect is strongest when the crime is violent or weak?

  Violent
• LOFTUS + PALMER (1974) - FINDINGS

  • Mean estimated speed for verb contacted = 31.8 mph
  • Speed for the verb smashed = 40.5 mph
• Did the leading question in Loftus' research make EW recall biased or unbiased?

  Biased
• The response bias explanation has no effect on memories but influences the answer
• LOFTUS + PALMER (Substitution explanation)

  • PPs who heard 'smashed' = more likely to report broken glass
  • Wording changed the memory of pp
• Research on Post-Event Discussion

  GABBERT ET AL (2003)

  • Studied pps in pairs - saw same crime but filmed from different points of view
  • Then discussed - then recall test
• GABBERT ET AL (2003) - FINDINGS

  • 71% of pps recalled things they had not seen
  • Control group = 0 %
• How PED affects EWT

  1. Memory Contamination - EWT = altered - combine info from other witnesses
  2. Memory Conformity - Along for social approval or believes others are right
• Does your memory change in memory conformity or contamination?

  Contamination
• EVALUATION - S1

  P - Important in criminal justice system

  E - Consequences of bad EWT = serious - Loftus - leading Q's distort effect - police should be careful - psychologists - expert witness + show how EWT is a limitation

  L - Psychologists improve system - protect people from bad EWT
• L1 - COUNTER

  P - Practical applications affected by research issues

  E - Loftus + Palmer - PPs watched lab clips = less stressful than IRL - Foster et al - pps response in lab → no consequences

  L - Researchers = too pessimistic about misleading info effects - EWT = more dependable
• L2 - Evidence against substitution - EWT = ↑ accurate in other aspects of event

  E - Sutherland + Hayne - pps shown clip - Interview - focused on more central features - memory resistant to misleading info

  L - OG memories survived - not distorted - not substitution outcome
• L3 - Evidence against memory conformity - actually alters EWT

  E - Skagerberg + Wright - Pps saw 2 v's of same clip - Then discussed groups in pairs - often not report what saw / what co-witness said but a ' blend ' of the 2

  (instead of light/dark brown = ' medium '

  L - Suggests memory = distorted by memory contamination not memory conformity