Outline and evaluate research (theories and/or studies) into the effects of misleading
information on eyewitness testimony.
(Total 16 marks)
Eyewitness testimony is the process of interviewing witnesses to a crime to help gain evidence and
facts on what happened. Misleading information is when the interviewer provides information during
that interview that may lead witnesses towards an answer that may not be correct. One study into
misleading information was performed by Loftus and Palmer (1974). They showed 45 students 7
videos of a car accident. After, students completed a questionnaire about the accident which included
the leading question 'About what speed were the cars going when they
contacted/bumped/hit/collided/smashed?'. They found that the mean estimation of speed provided
varied depending on what verb was used in the question. For example, the mean estimation was
34.0mph when the word hit was used, and 40.8mph when the word smashed was used. This
therefore shows how a question leading witnesses in a certain direction can have a huge influence on
the details the eyewitnesses supply, suggesting eyewitness accounts may not be completely reliable
due to interviewer techniques.
The findings of this study have important practical uses within the criminal justice system as the
consequence of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be serious. Loftus believes that police need to
be careful how they word their questions in order to ensure justice is served, and psychologists are
often asked to act as expert witnesses in investigations to highlight the limits of eyewitness testimony
to juries. This shows that psychologists can help improve the way the legal system works in
protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable eyewitness testimony.
However, there are issues with Loftus and Palmer’s research. Their participants watched film clips in
a lab which is very different from witnessing a real event, e.g. it’s less stressful. Furthermore, Foster
(1994) said that what eyewitnesses remember in real life is more important than their responses in
research meaning that they are less motivated to be accurate. Therefore researchers are too
pessimistic about the effects of misleading information and eyewitness testimony may be more
dependable than the research suggests.
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is more accurate for some aspects of an event than for others.
Sutherland and Hayne (2007) found that the central details of an event are recalled more accurately
than the peripheral ones suggesting that the memories of central events are more resistant to
misleading information. This suggests that original memories for central details survived and were not
distorted, an outcome not predicted by Loftus and Palmer.
information on eyewitness testimony.
(Total 16 marks)
Eyewitness testimony is the process of interviewing witnesses to a crime to help gain evidence and
facts on what happened. Misleading information is when the interviewer provides information during
that interview that may lead witnesses towards an answer that may not be correct. One study into
misleading information was performed by Loftus and Palmer (1974). They showed 45 students 7
videos of a car accident. After, students completed a questionnaire about the accident which included
the leading question 'About what speed were the cars going when they
contacted/bumped/hit/collided/smashed?'. They found that the mean estimation of speed provided
varied depending on what verb was used in the question. For example, the mean estimation was
34.0mph when the word hit was used, and 40.8mph when the word smashed was used. This
therefore shows how a question leading witnesses in a certain direction can have a huge influence on
the details the eyewitnesses supply, suggesting eyewitness accounts may not be completely reliable
due to interviewer techniques.
The findings of this study have important practical uses within the criminal justice system as the
consequence of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be serious. Loftus believes that police need to
be careful how they word their questions in order to ensure justice is served, and psychologists are
often asked to act as expert witnesses in investigations to highlight the limits of eyewitness testimony
to juries. This shows that psychologists can help improve the way the legal system works in
protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable eyewitness testimony.
However, there are issues with Loftus and Palmer’s research. Their participants watched film clips in
a lab which is very different from witnessing a real event, e.g. it’s less stressful. Furthermore, Foster
(1994) said that what eyewitnesses remember in real life is more important than their responses in
research meaning that they are less motivated to be accurate. Therefore researchers are too
pessimistic about the effects of misleading information and eyewitness testimony may be more
dependable than the research suggests.
Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is more accurate for some aspects of an event than for others.
Sutherland and Hayne (2007) found that the central details of an event are recalled more accurately
than the peripheral ones suggesting that the memories of central events are more resistant to
misleading information. This suggests that original memories for central details survived and were not
distorted, an outcome not predicted by Loftus and Palmer.
