misleading information and eyewitness testimony

• Loftus and Palmer- pps watched video of car crashes and then had to answer a questionnaire which included a critical question about how fast the cars were going when they hit eachother, the verb in the question was the IV, was found that the pps that experienced the condition where the verb was 'smashed' guessed a much higher mph level of the cars when they hit compared to the 'contacted' condition
• L+P car crash study evaluation- standardised procedures, researchers have high level of control over extraneous variables, therefore can be sure they are measuring the influence of the leading questions on accuracy of the eyewitness testimony and not any other variable, however video lacks mundane realism, results lack ecological validity, real world application of research- has led to changes in the ways police question witnesses
• Gabbert et al- pps watched a video from 1 of 2 angles- half of them discussed what they saw with someone who witnessed a different angle to them and the other half could not, pps who had discussed the crime reported back findings which they had could not have witnessed from their specific angle such as the title of a book,
• gabbert et al evaluation- standardisation of procedures in lab study, allows accurate replicability as there is high control over extraneous variables, therefore they can be sure that they are measuring the effects of post event discussion on EWT solely,
• Gabbert et al evaluation- research has real world application, had led to police putting a focus on interviewing the pps straight after they have witnessed a crime to reduce the effects of post event discussion , therefore research into the effects of post event discussion on EWT is useful to society