EWT-misleading info

Cards (6)

  • Misleading info- EWT-
    Leading questions-
    • Lotus and Palmer (1974) had 45 participants watch clips of a car accident, then asked questions about the crash after.
    • ‘About how fast were the cars going when they crashed’ using different verbs in 5 groups (smashed - highest, collided, bumped).
    • Found for contacted-31.8 mph, smashed- 40.5 mph, hit – 34.0 mph, bumped- 38.1, collided- 39.3.
  • Misleading info- EWT-
    Leading questions
    • Leading questions influence the eyewitness testimony due to response-bias – since the wording used doesn’t change our memory of the events, but it does change the way we describe them.
    • Substitution explanation – the wording does alter someone’s memory, since some ‘smashed’ participants claimed to see smashed glass.
  • Misleading info- EWT-
    Post-event discussion-
    • 71% of participants recall aspects from the others video.
    • A control group with no discussing had 0% inaccurate recall.
    • This experiment shows that the discussion influences the other participants memory with conformity.
    • This is due to after the discussion our brain merges our recollection with the new (mis)information changing our own recollection, as well as wanting social approval of agreeing with the others memory.
  • Misleading info- EWT-
    Post-event discussion-
    • Gabbert et al 2003 studied participants in pairs.
    • Watched the same video of the same crime from different points of view.
    • 1 could see details that the other couldn’t.
    • Then they discussed the crime they saw before taking an individual recall test.
  • Misleading info- EWT-
    CPS- Helps the criminal justice system due to an inaccurate EWT having big consequences- Loftus believes that the verbs used can distort the memories, so the police need to be careful – can improve the legal system.
    CPW- Loftus and Plamers experiment had an artificial stimulus which is different to real life events- too pessimistic.
  • Misleading info- EWT-
    W- More accurate for certain points but not all- Sutherland and Hayne (2001) showed a clip and then asked misleading questions where the recall was more accurate on central details rather than peripheral details, so the participants wee focusing on the main details in memory which were resistant to misleading information.
    W- Skagerberg and Wright (2008) – showed 2 different clips with noticeable differences (hair colour) then allowed post witness discussion in pairs, they then reported back a mix of both clips- memory is distorted by misleading discussion.