misleading information

• Misleading information


  One of the main factors affecting the accuracy of memory for an event seems to be what happens after the event has taken place. The memories laid down at the time seem to be quite fragile and subject to distortion by post event information. It appears that misinformation can introduce serious errors into the eyewitness's recall of the event.
• Misinformation acceptance


  Where people accept misleading information after an event and absorb it into their memory for the actual event. There is a greater tendency to accept post-event information in this way, as the time since the event increases.
• This has important implications for the ways in which the police and lawyers question individuals in criminal investigations.
• Leading questions


  A question which because of the way that it is phrased, suggests a certain answer. For example, "How big was the dent?" suggests there was a dent when actually there may not have been.
• Leading questions


  1. Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment 1:

  2. Participants (45 students) were shown seven films of different traffic accidents. After each film, the participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about it.

  3. There was one critical question about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? It was an independent groups design and each participant was given one of five verbs, hit, collided, bumped, smashed, contacted.

  4. The verb used significantly affected speed estimates. 'Smashed' produced the highest estimate (40.8) and 'contacted' had the lowest (31.8).
• Leading questions


  1. Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment 2:

  2. A new set of participants (150 students) were shown a film about a car accident and again asked questions about speed. They were divided into three groups (smashed, hit, control where there was no question about speed-50 in each condition). The participants were then asked to return one week later when they were asked a series of 10 questions about the accident, including another critical question, "did you see any broken glass?" (there was no broken glass in the film).

  3. The group who were given the word "smashed", were more likely to say they saw broken glass (16 participants), compared to "hit" (7 participants) and control (6 participants).
• Response bias explanation


  Leading questions affect recall because they affect the answers given, but do not actually affect the memory of the event (this often occurs in questionnaires). Thus, the answers are given because the question suggests the answer being looked for.
• Substitution explanation


  The leading question has affected the recall of the memory and distorts the memory of the event.
• Post-event discussion


  Occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or with other people. The information shared may affect how each witness recalls the event.
• Post-event discussion


  1. Gabbert et al (2003):

  2. 60 university students (aged 18-30) and 60 older adults from the local community (60-80 years) were used. Two video clips were used, each lasted 90 seconds and contained the same sequence of events but were filmed from different perspectives (A and B) to simulate different witness perspectives. The video was of a girl entering and committing an opportunistic crime (stealing a wallet).

  3. Participants either watched perspective A or perspective B. Half of the participants were given time to discuss what they had seen with a participant who had viewed the opposite perspective. The other half completed a questionnaire alone to think about the event. 45 minutes later (after a distraction task), all participants completed a questionnaire individually about their recall of the original event.

  4. 71% of witnesses who had discussed the event with a co-witness reported information that they had not seen and had gathered via discussion. 60% of these reported the girl was guilty of a crime that they had not actually seen.
• Post-event discussion


  1. Hope et al (2008):

  2. 96 university students (aged 18-58) watched a video of a girl returning a borrowed book (the same clip as in Gabbert et al 2003) to an office, from one of two perspectives. 24 participants were then allowed to complete a questionnaire on the event individually, whilst the remaining participants were paired with someone who had viewed a different perspective to them (for some pairs, this was a friend or romantic partner). They discussed the questions before completing the questionnaire. ALL participants were then given a questionnaire individually and there were two critical questions that could only be answered from one perspective.

  3. All those who had discussed the event were susceptible to misinformation and produced less accurate accounts than those who did not discuss the video. Participants who knew their co-witness prior to the study, were more likely to incorporate information from their co-witness into their own accounts.
• Memory contamination explanation


  After post-event discussion, the memory is changed because the new information has become mixed with the memory of the original event (retroactive interference).
• Memory conformity explanation


  Post-event discussion does not affect the actual memory, but instead people change their answers/recall because they are conforming to others for social approval (normative social influence).
• Leading question


  A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer
• Leading questions can affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (EWT) after an event
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment


  1. Participants shown films of traffic accidents

  2. Given questionnaire with specific questions about speed

  3. Verb used in question affected speed estimates
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment 2

  1. Participants shown film of car accident

  2. Asked questions about speed, divided into 3 groups (smashed, hit, control)

  3. Asked 10 questions 1 week later including 'did you see any broken glass?'
• Response bias explanation


  Leading questions affect the answers given, but do not actually affect the memory of the event
• Substitution explanation


  Leading question has affected the recall of the memory and distorts the memory of the event
• Post-event discussion (PED)


  Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or with other people, which may affect how each witness recalls the event
• Memory contamination explanation


  After PED, the memory is changed because the new information has become mixed with the memory of the original event
• Memory conformity explanation


  PED does not affect the actual memory, but people change their answers/recall because they are conforming to others for social approval
• One strength of the research into misleading information is that it is carried out in highly controlled conditions, supporting the suggestion that misleading information can affect the accuracy of EWT
• A limitation of the research is that it lacks ecological validity as the conditions are very different from a real-life crime situation
• Another limitation is that the research lacks population validity as it often uses university students who may have better recall than other age groups
• Leading questions are questions which, because of the way they are phrased, suggest a certain answer
• Leading questions can affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (EWT) after an event
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment

  1. Participants shown films of traffic accidents

  2. Participants given questionnaires with specific questions about the accidents, including a critical question about speed

  3. Verb used in critical question affected speed estimates
• Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment 2

  1. Participants shown film of car accident

  2. Participants divided into 3 groups - smashed, hit, control

  3. Participants asked if they saw any broken glass (there was no broken glass)

  4. Smashed group more likely to say they saw broken glass
• Response bias explanation


  Leading questions affect the answers given, but do not actually affect the memory of the event
• Substitution explanation


  Leading question has affected the recall of the memory and distorts the memory of the event
• Post-event discussion (PED) occurs when there is more than one witness to an event, and witnesses discuss what they have seen
• Gabbert et al (2003)


  1. Participants watched video clips of a girl committing a crime

  2. Half discussed the event with a co-witness, half completed a questionnaire alone

  3. 71% of witnesses who discussed reported information they had not seen
• Hope et al (2008)


  1. Participants watched video of girl returning a book

  2. Some discussed the event with a co-witness, others completed questionnaire alone

  3. All those who discussed were susceptible to misinformation and produced less accurate accounts
• Memory contamination explanation


  After PED, the memory is changed because the new information has become mixed with the memory of the original event
• Memory conformity explanation


  PED does not affect the actual memory, but people change their answers/recall because they are conforming to others for social approval
• The research into misleading information has high internal validity due to the controlled conditions
• The research may have low ecological validity as the conditions do not fully reflect real-world crime situations
• The research may have low population validity as it often uses university students who may have better recall than other age groups