Describe and evaluate research into the influence of misleading information on the accuracy of
eyewitness testimony
Leading question Leading question Post event discussion
Second exp- 150 shown a multi vehicle car accident
EWT is the evidence provided in court by a person and were split into 3 groups with different verb When co witnesses discuss a crime it may change
who witnessed a crime with a view to identifying questions they then returned a week later and asked if their memories because they combine information
the perpetrator. they saw broken glass even though there was none. from other witness with their own memories.
Loftus& Palmer- 45 students shown 7 films of traffic Verbs- hit, smashed and question about speed wasn’t Gabbert & colleagues studied participants in pairs.
accidents and then given a questionnaire. There asked (control). 16 people with verb smashed Each watched a video of a girl stealing money from
was a critical question on how fast the cars were reported to see glass whereas on 7 people from hit a wallet but from different points of view (only one
going when they hit each other, each had a saw glass. Therefore, showing their memory was saw the girl stealing)
different verb – hit, smashed, bumped, collided, distorted by the question.
contacted. They found that after discussion 71% recalled info
Response bias explanation- says it doesn’t affect they never saw and 60% said the girl was guilt
They found that the estimated speed was affected memory but influences how they answer- “smashed” even though they never saw her commit the crime.
by the verb used, smashed avg speed was- 40 mph means higher speed. This shows how PED affects EWT; this is called
whereas contacted was 31.8 mph. This shows Substitution explanation- wording actually changed memory conformity (go along to be right or liked).
accuracy of EWT is affected by leading questions memory of the even as shown by 2nd experiment. 0 % in control group.
Lab experiments Artificial tasks Participants
A strength would be that the experiments took Loftus and palmer show a limitation when they used All the participants were students in loftus and
place in a lab. artificial tasks. palmers study so results are not generalizable.
This was shown when loftus and palmer tested their This was shown when they watched film clips of car This is shown when students are not representative
participants EWT in a lab so extraneous variables accidents, which is very different from real life of the general population due to age, lack of
were controlled and it followed a standardized accidents as these may be more stressful. They are driving experience and educational experience
procedure. less motivated to be accurate in their judgment. In (they are use to be tested).
real life there would be more emotions affecting recall
Therefore, it has high internal validity and the and there is an element of surprise so you wont be Therefore, the experiment lacks ecological validity
studies can be replicated to see if the results can be paying attention as the student’s experiences may have affected
generalized. the way they answered the questions.
Therefore, this shows us little about how leading
questions affect EWT in real-life cases so it lacks
mundane realism and ecological validity.
RLA Alternative- schemas
A strength of research into misleading information Barlett argues that our memories are not accurate
is that it has huge practical implications in the real snapshots of events but reconstruction of events
world. influenced by our schemas.
For example, there are huge consequences of For example, schemas are our expectations of events
inaccurate EWT and loftus believes that leading based on previous experiences and we use these to fill
questions can destroy memory and police officers in gaps of our knowledge.
have to be careful when intervening EW.
Therefore, this will affect the reliability of EWT
Therefore this shows that research EWT is an area because events are not reported as they happened
eyewitness testimony
Leading question Leading question Post event discussion
Second exp- 150 shown a multi vehicle car accident
EWT is the evidence provided in court by a person and were split into 3 groups with different verb When co witnesses discuss a crime it may change
who witnessed a crime with a view to identifying questions they then returned a week later and asked if their memories because they combine information
the perpetrator. they saw broken glass even though there was none. from other witness with their own memories.
Loftus& Palmer- 45 students shown 7 films of traffic Verbs- hit, smashed and question about speed wasn’t Gabbert & colleagues studied participants in pairs.
accidents and then given a questionnaire. There asked (control). 16 people with verb smashed Each watched a video of a girl stealing money from
was a critical question on how fast the cars were reported to see glass whereas on 7 people from hit a wallet but from different points of view (only one
going when they hit each other, each had a saw glass. Therefore, showing their memory was saw the girl stealing)
different verb – hit, smashed, bumped, collided, distorted by the question.
contacted. They found that after discussion 71% recalled info
Response bias explanation- says it doesn’t affect they never saw and 60% said the girl was guilt
They found that the estimated speed was affected memory but influences how they answer- “smashed” even though they never saw her commit the crime.
by the verb used, smashed avg speed was- 40 mph means higher speed. This shows how PED affects EWT; this is called
whereas contacted was 31.8 mph. This shows Substitution explanation- wording actually changed memory conformity (go along to be right or liked).
accuracy of EWT is affected by leading questions memory of the even as shown by 2nd experiment. 0 % in control group.
Lab experiments Artificial tasks Participants
A strength would be that the experiments took Loftus and palmer show a limitation when they used All the participants were students in loftus and
place in a lab. artificial tasks. palmers study so results are not generalizable.
This was shown when loftus and palmer tested their This was shown when they watched film clips of car This is shown when students are not representative
participants EWT in a lab so extraneous variables accidents, which is very different from real life of the general population due to age, lack of
were controlled and it followed a standardized accidents as these may be more stressful. They are driving experience and educational experience
procedure. less motivated to be accurate in their judgment. In (they are use to be tested).
real life there would be more emotions affecting recall
Therefore, it has high internal validity and the and there is an element of surprise so you wont be Therefore, the experiment lacks ecological validity
studies can be replicated to see if the results can be paying attention as the student’s experiences may have affected
generalized. the way they answered the questions.
Therefore, this shows us little about how leading
questions affect EWT in real-life cases so it lacks
mundane realism and ecological validity.
RLA Alternative- schemas
A strength of research into misleading information Barlett argues that our memories are not accurate
is that it has huge practical implications in the real snapshots of events but reconstruction of events
world. influenced by our schemas.
For example, there are huge consequences of For example, schemas are our expectations of events
inaccurate EWT and loftus believes that leading based on previous experiences and we use these to fill
questions can destroy memory and police officers in gaps of our knowledge.
have to be careful when intervening EW.
Therefore, this will affect the reliability of EWT
Therefore this shows that research EWT is an area because events are not reported as they happened
