Misleading information

• Why might Loftus and Palmer’s work not be as compelling as it appears?

  Might have been susceptible to methodological flaws, particularly low sample size
• Why is low sample size problematic?

  Study needs to be interpreted with caution as it lacks population validity
• How does low population validity in Loftus and Palmer’s study matter?


  Students may have been less experienced drivers and therefore have inaccurate estimates of the speed of the cars when crashing
• What is a strength of Loftus and Palmer’s study?

  Application of findings to the criminal justice system; avoidance of leading questions in EWT reports
• Why is it advantageous that Lotfus and Palmer’s work is applicable to law enforcement?

  Reduce amount of incorrect evidence collected, thus reducing wrongful wrongful convictions; overall benefiting society
• What is a critique of Gabbert’s work?


  Fails to provide a comprehensive account of why post-event discussion causes distortions in memory
• What is unclear about Gabbert’s work into post-event discussion?

  Unclear whether memory distortion is due to poor memories or social pressure
• Why might psychologists critique post-event discussion as a credible explanation?

  Research unable to explain the underlying mechanisms that impact the accuracy of EWT; lacking explanatory power
• Outline and evaluate research into misleading information and how it impacts EWT (16 marker)

  AO1: Loftus and Palmer (1974)

  AO3 (-): Low sample size

  AO3 (+): CJS

  AO1: Gabbert and Co (2003)

  AO3 (-): Memory distortion