MEMORY - ewt misleading info - topic 6.0

leading questions

- information after an event can have a retroactive interfering effect on our collection (new information gets integretated and confused with current knowledge)
- memories can be easily altered by other information

LQ - lotus and palmer (1974): experiment 1

- looked at if speed estimates after watching a video of a car crash would be influenced by how the question was phrased

- participants watched a video of car cash and were then asked questions about what they had seen, using different verbs to deserve the crash
- "how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted each other"

- the speed estimate given by participants varied depending on the verb used.
- highest for smashed and lowest for contacted

- supports leading questions as it shows how a question is asked affects the answer given

LQ - loftus and palmer (1974): experiment 2

- looked at if leading questions just changed responses given to questions or if it altered memories as well

watched a video of a car crash then placed into 3 groups
- "about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other"
- "about how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other"
- not interviewed

- a week later they were asked 10 questions
- asked "did you see any broken glass" when there wasn't

- the number of participants who claimed to see broken glass was highest in the smashed control and lowest in the control condition

- how a question is asked not only influences the answer an individual gives at the time but can also result in changes to the actual memory

RM (experimental designs): repeated measures

- all ppts receive all levels of IV (all conditions)

- ppts do test with tv one day then do it again without the tv

RM (experimental designs): matched pairs

- ppts matched in pairs due to similar characteristics then one goes in group A and the other in group B

- A do with tv, B without
- both groups are similar and differences are down to IV
- matched characteristics must be relevant to the test eg learning styles

RM (experimental designs): independent groups

- split groups into equal sized groups A and B

- A do with tv, B without
- results compared

RM (experimental designs): counterbalancing

- eliminates order effects

AB or BA
- split into two groups
- group 1 = condition A first then condition B
- group 2 = condition B first then condition A

ABBA
- trial 1: condition A in the morning
- trial 2: condition B in the afternoon
- trial 3: condition B in the morning
- trial 4: condition A in the afternoon

- trials 1+4 and 2+3 are compared

post-event discussion

- when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated
- they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories

PED - Gabbert (2003)

- ppts studied in pairs
- each participant watched the video of the same crime but filmed from different povs
- each ppt saw elements that the other could not see (eg title of a book)
- both ppts then discussed what they had seen before completing an individual tes of recall

- 71% mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that wasn't seen in the video but picked up in the discussion
- control group had 0%

- concluded that witnesses often go along with each other either to win social approval or because they believe they're wrong and other witnesses are correct (MEMORY CONFORMITY)

why does ped affect ewt?

SOURCE MEMORY THEORY
- memories of the event are genuinely distorted
- ew can recall accurate/inaccurate information but not where it came from which is known as (SOURCE CONFUSION)

CONFORMITY THEORY
- ew memories aren't distorted by ped
- their recall appears to change bc they go along with witnesses of co-witnesses
- for social approval or memory conformity

EVAL: real-life application

- important practical uses in the real world
- effects of leading questions can be so strong that police officers should be careful in questioning witnesses
- research into ewt is an area where psychologists believe that they can make a positive difference to peoples lives
- eg improving the legal system and appearing in court as expert witnesses

EVAL - tasks are artificial

- in loftus and palmer's study, the participants all watched film clips of the car accident
- different from witnessing a real car accident because lit lacks stress of a real accident
- evidence to suggest that emotions can have an influence on memory
- lacks ecological validity meaning we can't be sure it would happen irl

EVAL - response bias

- Bekerian and Bowers (1983) compared ppts in 2 conditions
- c1 = set of questions each matched with data that was either consistent or inconsistent and then asked those questions in different order
- ppts were less accurate in the later questions if they had been given inconsistent data (type of lq)
- cond 2 = ppts given same task but no inconsistent data and same order questions
- order of questions have a significant effect so memory change is due to response bias not storage

EVAL - individual differences

- Anastasi and Rhodes (2006)
- 3 age groups had to rate 24 individuals from diff age groups for attractiveness
- later presented with 48 photos - 24 already seen and 24 distractors and had to say if they recognised them or not
- participants perform better when ages are the same
- age effects may be because people do better when asked to identify people of the same age
- more experience with people our age
- younger people in as target in research studies is a problem because age affects performance so if one age group is used then findings can't be generalised