5 leading questions + post-event discussions AO1 + 3 (factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony

what are leading questions?

Questions that suggest or bias a witness’s answer, distorting memory.

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Exp. 1 LQ

AIM:
To see whether the verb in a question affects speed estimates.

METHOD:
• 45 students
• Watched car accident films
• Asked: “How fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/bumped/collided/contacted?”

RESULTS:
• “Smashed” → 40.5 mph
• “Contacted” → 31.8 mph
→ Leading questions change memory of speed.

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Exp. 2 LQ

AIM:
To see if leading questions create false memories.

METHOD:
• 150 participants
• Watched a 1-min crash
• Asked either “hit”, “smashed”, or no question
• 1 week later asked: “Did you see broken glass?” (There was none.)

RESULTS:
• “Smashed” → 32% said yes
• “Hit” → 14%
• Control → 12%
→ Leading questions produce false memories, not just biased answers.

Gabbert et al (2003) PED

AIM:
To test if talking with another witness causes memory contamination.

METHOD:
• Participants in pairs
• Watched same crime, but from different angles (each saw unique details) of girl stealing money from a wallet
• Allowed to discuss the event before recalling individually

RESULTS:
• 71% recalled details they never saw

• 60% said the girl was guilty despite not seeing the crime
  • 0% errors in control group
  → PED causes memory conformity and misinformation.

What is post-event discussion?

When witnesses discuss an event after it happened, causing memory contamination (mixing info from others).
This can distort original memory.

Strength: Elisabeth Loftus (high control + strong evidence) LQ

P: A major strength is strong, reliable lab evidence from Elisabeth Loftus.
E: Loftus & Palmer tightly controlled variables (same film, only verb changed).
E: The clear difference (40.5 vs 31.8 mph) shows wording alone altered memory.
L: This makes the research scientifically credible and supports the idea that leading questions distort EWT.

Weakness: Demand Characteristics LQ

P: A weakness is that participants may show demand characteristics.
E: Participants may guess the aim — “smashed” sounds more serious, so they give higher estimates.
E: This means responses might reflect expectations, not real memory change.
L: Reduces internal validity of lab studies into leading questions.

weakness: bodner

warned participants not to report info from others, so recall was highly accurate → low EV

Strength: Applications LQ

P: Leading question research has important real-world applications.
E: Police now avoid using biased verbs or suggestive questioning.
E: Contributed to the development of the Cognitive Interview, improving justice system accuracy.
L: Shows high practical value, increasing real-world reliability of EWT.

list the strengths and weaknesses of LQ

+ Elisabeth Loftus → reliable

+ Applications to CI

- demand characteristics

Strength: Gabbert Reliability (2007) PED

P: A strength is reliable, consistent evidence from Gabbert et al.
E: Across repeated trials, 71% of participants reported misinformation they never saw.
E: Control group = 0% errors → strong comparison.
L: Shows PED consistently leads to memory conformity, increasing reliability of findings.

Weakness: Bodner et al (2009) PED

P: A weakness is that PED effects (emotions) can be reduced.
E: Bodner et al found that when participants were warned about misleading information, memory distortion dropped significantly.
E: This means PED isn’t inevitable as there no consequences for doing so.
L: Weakens the argument that all eyewitnesses are highly vulnerable to misinformation.

Strength: Applications PED

P: Research into PED has important practical applications.
E: Police now separate witnesses to prevent discussion and memory contamination.
E: Contributed to improved interviewing strategies like the Cognitive Interview (e.g., reporting without discussion).
L: Increases accuracy of real-world EWT → high societal value.

strengths and weaknesses of PED

+ Gabbert et al → high reliability

+ Applications to CI

- Reduce emotional impacts not portray RL EWT