Limitation

• A limitation of the substitution explanation is that EWT (Eyewitness Testimony) is more accurate for some aspects of an event than others
• Sutherland et al (2001) found that when participants were shown a video clip and then later asked misleading questions, their recall was more accurate for central details of the event than for peripheral ones
• Central features


  Features of an event that the participants' attention was focused on
• Peripheral features


  Features of an event that were not the focus of the participants' attention
• The original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, an outcome that is not predicted by the substitution explanation
• A limitation of research into misleading information is that laboratory studies have identified misleading information as a cause of inaccurate EWT, partly by being able to control variables
• Some argue that many answers given by participants in laboratory studies are due to demand characteristics
• We cannot be certain whether or not misleading information actually influences the memory itself, it could just be demand characteristics driving changes in recall
• Participants may 'guess' when they are asked a question they don't know the answer to
• This questions the internal validity of the supporting lab based research for misleading information