misleading information

• who researched leading questions

  Loftus and Palmer (1974)
• what was Loftus and Palmer's method

  45 participants in 5 conditions, they all watched a clip of a car accident and were then asked a leading question (how fast were the cars travelling when they smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted each other
• findings of Loftus and Palmer

  the verb that researchers used to describe the accident influenced the ppts of how fast the cars were travelling (the more serious the word, the faster the predicted speed)
• define leading questions

  a question which because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer
• what was the second research of Loftus and Palmer

  ppts were asked if any glass was broken in the film, they found in the smashed condition were more likely to report seeing broken glass
• what is the response-bias explanation

  wording of the question has no influence on the memory itself but it influences the witness answer
• what is the substitution explanation

  the wording of a question can change the persons memory of the clip
• what is post event discussion

  when witnesses discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or with other people
• what is memory conformity

  witnesses often go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe that they are wrong and other witnesses are right
• who researched post event discussion

  Gabbert et al (2003)
• what was Gabbert et al's procedure

  120 ppts all from Aberdeen, participants were put into pairs and both watched the same video of a girl stealing money from a wallet but from different perspectives . Pairs then discusses what they had seen individually completed a recall test.
• what did Gabbert et al find

  71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the post event discussion with their partner. In the control group no one made recall errors
• was can we conclude from Gabbert et al's research

  eyewitnesses should not discuss what they saw after a crime has been committed as it negatively impacts the accuracy of EWT.
• Strong Lab Evidence – Loftus & Palmer (1974)

  • Participants shown a car crash and asked questions with different verbs (“hit” vs. “smashed”) → the verb changed participants’ speed estimates and likelihood of reporting broken glass.
  • Shows leading questions can distort memory, supporting the reconstructive memory theory.
• Real-World Application – Improves Justice System

  • Findings used to improve police interview techniques, e.g., in the Cognitive Interview, which avoids leading questions.
  • Prevents miscarriages of justice caused by inaccurate eyewitness accounts.
• Evidence for Post-Event Discussion – Gabbert et al. (2003)

  • Pairs of participants viewed the same event from different angles and then discussed it.
  • 71% mistakenly recalled details they hadn’t seen, showing memory conformity.
  • Highlights how misleading post-event information can alter memory.
• Artificial Nature of Research

  • Watching videos of car accidents lacks the emotional impact and stress of witnessing a real crime.
  • Memory may be better or worse in real life, limiting ecological validity.

  🧩 Links to: Mundane realism, Lab vs field setting, External validity
• Not All Witnesses Are Equally Affected

  • Individual differences: Older people may be more susceptible to misleading info, while younger adults may have more accurate recall.
  • Suggests misleading info doesn’t affect everyone in the same way.
• Ethical Issues in Deception and Misinformation

  • Participants in some studies are deliberately misled or shown distressing content.
  • Raises ethical concerns, especially if informed consent isn't fully transparent.