Misleading information

• An ‘eyewitness’ is someone who has seen or witnessed a crime, usually present at the time of the incident. They may have to appear in court to give evidence. The witness will be encouraged to remember details of the event to give their testimony of what they observed. However, the accuracy of EWT can be affected by factors such as leading question and anxiety.
• What was the main aim of Loftus and Palmer's 1974 experiment?


  To investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
• How many American students participated in Loftus and Palmer's first experiment?


  45 American students
• How were the participants divided in Loftus and Palmer's first experiment?


  They were divided into five groups of nine
• What did all participants in the first experiment watch?


  A video of a car crash
• What variable did Loftus and Palmer manipulate in their questioning?


  The verb used in the question about the speed of the cars
• What were the verbs used in Loftus and Palmer's question about the speed of the cars?


  Smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted
• How many American students participated in Loftus and Palmer's second experiment?


  150 American students
• How were the participants divided in Loftus and Palmer's second experiment?


  They were divided into three even groups
• What did all participants in the second experiment watch?


  A one-minute video depicting a car accident
• What was the critical question asked one week later in the second experiment?

  Did you see any broken glass?
• What were the three groups in Loftus and Palmer's second experiment asked regarding the speed of the cars?


  • "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?"
  • "How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?"
  • Control group was not asked about the speed
• What was the purpose of the control group in Loftus and Palmer's second experiment?


  To compare the results with those who were asked about the speed of the vehicles
• What type of experiment did Loftus and Palmer conduct?


  A classic experiment
• What was the main focus of the questionnaire given to participants in the second experiment?


  To assess their recollection of the accident
• What is the main focus of Loftus and Palmer's first experiment regarding leading questions and EWT?


  It investigates how leading questions affect eyewitness testimony (EWT).
• What does the response-bias explanation suggest about leading questions?


  It suggests that the wording influences how participants decide to answer, not their memories.
• How does the word 'smashed' in a leading question affect participants' responses?


  It encourages participants to choose a higher speed estimate.
• What is the focus of Loftus and Palmer's second experiment?


  It investigates the substitution bias in leading questions.
• What does substitution bias suggest about leading questions?


  It suggests that the wording of a leading question changes the participant's memory of the event.
• How did Loftus and Palmer demonstrate substitution bias in their second experiment?


  Participants who heard 'smashed' were more likely to report seeing broken glass than those who heard 'hit.'
• What was the critical finding regarding the verb used in leading questions in Loftus and Palmer's experiments?


  The critical verb altered participants' memory of the incident.
• What was the aim of the research conducted by Gabbert et al. in 2003?


  To investigate the effect of post-event discussion on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
• What was the sample size used in Gabbert et al.'s study?


  120 participants, consisting of 60 students and 60 older adults
• Where were the participants in Gabbert et al.'s study recruited from?


  University of Aberdeen and a local community
• What type of footage did participants watch in the study?


  Video footage of the same crime from different angles
• What was the difference between the control group and the co-witness group?


  The control group had no discussion, while the co-witness group discussed the crime
• What percentage of the co-witness group recalled information they had not actually seen?


  71%
• What percentage of the control group included unique information from the footage?


  0%
• What conclusion can be drawn from Gabbert et al.'s study regarding post-event discussion?


  • Post-event discussion can significantly affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
  • It can lead to the incorporation of misleading information.
• Memory conformity This occurs when witnesses fabricate their memories in order to achieve social acceptance/approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong..

  Memory contamination When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimony becomes altered/distorted to their original memory, because they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
• What is one strength of research into misleading information?


  It has important practical uses in the criminal justice system.
• Why is inaccurate eyewitness testimony (EWT) a concern?


  The consequence of inaccurate EWT can be very serious.
• Who believes that leading questions can distort memory?

  Loftus (1975)
• What do police officers need to be careful about when interviewing eyewitnesses?


  How to phrase their questions.
• Why are psychologists sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials?


  To explain the limits of EWT to juries.
• How can psychologists improve the legal system?


  By protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT.
• What are the practical implications of misleading information research in the criminal justice system?


  • Important for accurate eyewitness testimony
  • Helps prevent wrongful convictions
  • Guides police in questioning techniques
  • Informs juries about the reliability of EWT
• What is external validity in the context of eyewitness testimony research?


  It refers to the extent to which findings can be generalized to real-life situations.
• How did participants in the co-witness condition witness the crime?


  They witnessed different perspectives of the same crime, similar to real-life situations.