FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCURACY OF EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY - MISLEADING INFORMATION

What is eyewitness testimony

The information recalled about a crime by an eyewitness.

How can eyewitness testimony be reduced

Through the influence of misleading (incorrect) information in the form of leading questions and post-event discussions.

LOFTUS AND PALMER research on effects of leading questions on accuracy of EWT

Participants watched a film clip of a car crash and then gave speed estimates of the cars based on the leading question of "About how fast were the cars going when they x into each other?", with each group being exposed to a different critical verb. Those exposed to the verb "smashed" gave a speed estimate 8.7 mph greater than those who'd heard "contacted". Therefore, this shows that leading questions, because of the way they are phrased, suggest that there is a correct answer.

How can leading questions be explained

The effects of leading questions can be explained using the idea of response bias (i.e. these questions only influence the participants to give a certain answer)

What does Loftus and Palmer’s study support

The substitution explanation i.e. leading questions change the eyewitness' memory of the crime, as those who'd heard the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass 2 weeks after the crime (despite there being no broken glass) compared to those who'd heard the word "contacted".

POST EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Post-event discussions describe the discussions that take place between co-witnesses after the crime has taken place, and is subject to the influence of media and TV reports on the crime, as well as participants' pre-conceived expectations of how they would imagine the crime.

GABBERT ET AL- POST EVENT DISCUSSION

He used a matched-pairs design, showed participants a film clip of the same crime scene, but with different details for each member. After engaging in post-event discussions with the other member of each pair and individually completing a test of recall, the researchers found 71% inaccuracy rates of information gained through such discussions, compared to a 0% control group rate who had worked alone throughout.

What were the statistics in Gabbert et al’s experiment

They found 71% inaccuracy rates of information gained through such discussions, compared to a 0% control group rate who worked alone

WHAT DO POST EVENT DISCUSSIONS DEMONSTRATE

• The idea of 'memory conformity', where we are more likely to pick up upon incorrect ideas or details because we believe that we are wrong and the other person is right.

WEAKNESS - demand charcteristics reducing reliability of findings

• They reduce the reliability of the findings, as argued by Zaragosa and McCloskey, who suggest that participants often want to be as helpful and attentive as possible. This means that, through the mechanism of social desirability bias and the 'Please-U' effect, when in doubt over their answer to a question, they are likely to give an answer which seems most beneficial or expected of the researcher, thus biasing the results and reducing the likelihood that the same results will be demonstrated again.

WEAKNESS - reduced ecological validity

• The artificial tasks and stimuli used by both Loftus and Palmer, alongside Gabbert, reduces ecological validity of the findings and the mundane realism of the methodology. For example, the film clips of the car crashes do not expose participants to the anxiety of experiencing a real-life car crash. This biases the findings and bases it on what the participants imagine and not what they’d actually feel

STRENGTH - insight into memory processes

• The research into misleading information contributes to understanding how memory works, like the theory of memory reconstruction. It shows that memory is not a perfect recording but is influenced by external factors, such as suggestive questions or post-event discussion.

• The source-monitoring theory and the idea of memory contamination help explain why people might falsely recall information based on misleading suggestions.

STRENGTH - strong empirical evidence

• Loftus and Palmer's Study, one of the most influential studies on misleading information showed how the phrasing of a question like "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?") could distort the witness's memory of the event. This finding demonstrates how easily eyewitness memory can be influenced by post-event information.