Misleading info on EWT

• • Loftus and Palmer 1974: 45 students shown traffic accidents and asked: How fast were the cars going when they ___ each other (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted)
• • Smashed gave highest average estimate of 40.8, while contacted gave average estimate of 31.8
• Second experiment:

  • new Ps were in 3 groups, watched another crash video and asked same questions with “smashed”, “hit” and the control.
  • When requestioned a week later, asked 10 Qs, including whether they saw broken glass. Smashed: 16/34 said yes, Hit: 7/43 said yes, control: 6/44 said yes
• Conformity effect:

  • Gabbert 2003, Ps partnered up and each watched different video perspectives of the same event. One group of pairs allowed to talk with partner after the video, other group stayed alone. 71% of partners who discussed went on to mistakenly recall items that hadn't been in their video in later interview
• • Repeat interviewing:
  • LaRooy 2005, Each time an EW is interviewed, there is possibility of the comments from the interviewer tainting the memory. Also chance of leading questions from interviewer tainting memory
• AO3 Support:

  • Lotus conducted study using bugs bunny cut outs (Braun 2002), Ps who visited Disneyland as kids asked to evaluate ads of bugs bunny (not Disney character) and Ariel (not introduced by time of Ps childhood). Ps who were shown these cuts outs more likely to report having shook hands with these characters, as opposed to Ps who weren't shown the cut outs - shows effects of misleading info
• AO3 support:

  Research into EWT can help reform way justice system functions. DNA exoneration has confirmed warning from psychologists of mistaken testimonies, being the largest single factor in false convictions of now DNA proven innocents (Wells and Olson 2003)
• AO3 Criticism

  • Lab experiments by Loftus unrepresentative as Ps may not take experiment as seriously/may not be as emotionally aroused as they would be in a real life accident. Foster 1994, if Ps thought they were watching a real life robbery, and that their responses would affect a real trial, their identification of the robber more accurate. Yuille and Cutshall 1986, witnesses to a real robbery gave very accurate reports even 4 months after, despite being given 2 misleading questions
• AO3 criticism:

  • Many studies have found elderly people have poorer EW reliability than younger people (Schacter 1991), and remember less about the source of their info, making them more susceptible to misleading info - individual differences play large part in misleading effect on EWT
  • Bekerian and Bowers 1983, replicate a Loftus 1978 study, and found Ps are not susceptible to misleading info if the Qs are presented in the same order as the original data. Suggests question order has significant effect, meaning memory change due to response bias rather than storage