EWT - MISLEADING INFORMATION

• Eyewitness testimony – refers to an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. 
• Misleading information – in correct information given to an eyewitness usually after the event, which can distort what they remember. Two ways this can occur is through leading questions and post-event discussion. 
• Leading questions - Questions that are phrased in a certain way to suggest a particular answer. 
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) (1)

  Aim – to investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of EWT. 

  Procedure – 45 students were shown short video clips of car accidents. All the participants were asked ‘How fast was the car going when they ______ each other?’ Each group was given a different verb to fill the gap. Examples include smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted etc. 
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) (1)


  Findings – the mean estimated speed was calculated. The verb ‘contacted’ was an average of 31.8mph whereas for the verb ‘smashed’, the mean was 40.5mph. The leading question biased the recall of the event. 
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) (1)

  • 150 participants were shown a short film that showed a multi-vehicle car accident and then asked questions. 
  • There were three groups: 

  Group 1 - ‘How fast were the cars going when they HIT each other?’ 

  Group 2 - ‘How fast were the cars going when they SMASHED into each other?’ 

  Group 3 – control – not asked about speed 

  One week later, all participants returned and were asked if they saw any broken glass – the verb changed their answers - ‘smashed’ = yes 
• Explanations for leading questions

  1. Response bias – different answers because of different verbs and schemas 
  2. Substitution – critical word changes the persons memory. 
• Post-event discussion occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with others. 

  Problem: they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories. 
• Gabbert et al (2003)

  Aim – to investigate the effects of PED on the accuracy of EWT 

  Procedure: 

  • Participants consisted of 60 students from a university and 60 adults locally. 
  • Each participant watched a video from a crime scene but filmed from different points of view 
  • They were either tested individually (control) or in pairs (co-witness group). 
  • The participants in the co-witness group were told they had watched the same video, but they had seen different perspectives. 
  • Participants completed a recall test, testing their memory of the event. 
• Gabbert et al (2003)


  Findings -

  • 71% of participants recalled aspects they had not seen but had discussed  
  • In the control group 0% recalled information they had not seen. 
• Why does PED affect us?

  1. Memory contamination – memories become altered or distorted because they combine information from other witnesses with their own memories. 
  2. Memory conformity – witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they think others are right. 
• Strength:

  ✅ Real life application – misleading information has practical implications on the criminal justice system. 
• Limitations:

  ❌ Evidence against substitution – participants do not ‘see’ the accident differently. They remember the central details of accident but not the peripheral details. 

  ❌ Demand characteristics – research has found that many answers given by participants are due to demand characteristics. Participants want to be helpful and not let the researcher down. 

  ❌ Lacks ecological validity – the videos of accidents do not have the same impact compared to real life. Therefore, does not have the same emotional impact.