AO3: Misleading & PED

• Loftus and Palmer: ID + Q

  Both of Loftus and Palmer's studies lack ecological validity. This means that the findings on speed estimates and altering memory cannot be applies to EWT on car crashes.
• Loftus and Palmer: What did they see?

  In the lab they saw a video of a multi-vehicle car accident. This is different to real life because the participants aren't watching it first hand. In real life you would see peripheral things and its less likely that you would watch the whole event from start to finish.
• Loftus and Palmer: How do they feel?

  In the lab they wouldn't feel much emotion towards the film as they're aware that it has been engineered. Participants would likely be chilled out and relaxed during questioning. However in real life, witnesses would feel guilt or pressure for not being able to specifically recall what happened, as well as anxiousness, panic and trauma.
• Loftus and Palmer: What happens if they're wrong?

  In the lab, there are no consequences to incorrect answers because nothing has actually happened. Participants are also more likely to just guess in an experiment because of this. However, in a real life scenario, EWT must be accurate in order to hold the correct people accountable for what has happened.
• Loftus and Palmer: AN

  Therefore these studies only show how people would respond under a controlled, unique set of circumstances.
• Loftus and Palmer: ID + Q

  Both studies lack population validity. This means that findings on speed estimates and altering memories cannot be generalised to EWT of other, wider groups of people.
• Loftus and Palmer: Who did they use?


  150 student participants
• Loftus and Palmer: Why would this impact the speed estimates?

  Students are likely to be less experienced drivers so therefore their answers are more likely to be influenced by leading questions and verb choice.
• Loftus and Palmer: Who might be better?

  People who have been driving for a long time.
• Loftus and Palmer: Why would they be better?

  More experience driving would mean that they would have more confidence answering questions on the subject so therefore less influenced by leading questions and verb choice.
• Loftus and Palmer: AN

  Therefore findings on leading questions may not apply to those with more experience and feel more confident guessing speeds.
• Gabbert et al: Issues with validity

  Participants knew it was about memory so paid more attention than someone watching a real crime would. Additionally in a real crime you might be exposed to less information. The unrealistic lab environment therefore impacts validity which means that the findings cannot necessarily be generalised to settings beyond the lab setting. This was further evidenced Foster said that participants' recall was more accurate when they thought they were watching a real robbery and their identification had consequences.
• Gabbert et al: Overall implications and real life application

  This research has lead to general improvements to the legal system. Police officers need to be conscious of how they phrase their questions; leading questions are prohibited, interviews are recorded and witness statements are written down and must be signed by the witness who gave the statement. Mistaken identity was found to be the biggest individual factor in the conviction of innocent people. As a result of research by Loftus and Palmer and Gabbert et al, cases have been reviewed and many innocent people have been exonerated.