Evaluation

• Real-world application


  One strength of research into misleading information is that it has important uses in the criminal justice system:

  • The consequences of inaccurate EWT are very serious
  • Police officers need to be careful about how they phrase their questions to eyewitnesses, since they can distort memories
  • This shows that psychologists can help to improve the way the legal system works, especially by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based off unreliable EWT
• Counterpoint to real-world application


  However, the practical applications of EWT may be affected by issues with research:

  • e.g. Loftus and Palmer's participants watched videos of car crashes in a lab, which is very different to experiencing it in real life
  • Rachel Foster et al. (1994) pointed out that the eyewitnesses may have been less motivated to answer accurately as they knew it didn't matter much
  • This suggests that researchers such as Loftus may be too pessimistic about the effects of misleading information - EWT may be more dependable than studies suggest
• Evidence against substitution


  One limitation of the substitution explanation is that EWT is more accurate for some aspects of an event than others:

  • Rachel Sutherland and Harlene Hayne (2001) showed participants a video. When participants were later asked leading questions, their recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral ones
  • These memories were relatively resistant to misleading information
  • This suggests that the original memories for central details survived and were not distorted, which isn't predicted by the substitution explanation
• Evidence challenging memory conformity

  One limitation of the memory conformity explanation is evidence that post-event discussion actually alters EWT:

  • Elin Skagerberg and Daniel Wright (2008) showed their participants videos of a mugging. There were two versions - the mugger had light brown hair in one and dark brown in the other
  • Participants discussed the clips in pairs, each having seen different versions. They often did not report what they had seen or what they had heard from the PED, but rather a blend (e.g. answering that the mugger's hair was 'medium brown')