L7 - Factors affecting EWT: Misleading information
What is eyewitness testimony?
Eyewitness testimony is a legal term referring to an account given, by people, of an event that they have
witnessed. This may include identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene etc.
For example, an individual may be required to give a description at a trial of a robbery or a road accident
that they have seen. This includes identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene etc.
Why do psychologist investigate the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?
•
There are still a lot of misidentification in cases despite DNA testing and other means.
• 72% of wrongful convictions are due to the eyewitness misidentification (identifying the wrong person).
• Jurors (the people who decide if a defendant is guilty/innocent) are strongly influenced by eyewitness
accounts.
One factor affecting eyewitness testimony is misleading information.
Misleading information refers to incorrect information given to the eyewitness which affects their accuracy
of memory.
Leading questions:
Leading questions are a question that, either by its form or content, suggests a desired answer or leads them
to the desired answer
Loftus and Palmer (1974): Leading questions:
Aim: To investigate the effects of leading questions on the accuracy of EWT
Method: • Controlled laboratory experiment
• 45 American students
Procedure • Participants were shown seven films of different traffic accidents.
• After each film participants were given a questionnaire asking them to describe the
accident and then answer a series of questions based on the accident.
• Participants were split into five groups each asked a different critical question as part of
the series of questions:
• ‘How fast were the cars travelling when they smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted
each other?’
• Independent Variable: ____________________________.
• Dependent Variable: _____________________________.
Results/ In order rank the words that would’ve produced reporting's of the highest speed the
Findings: words you think would’ve produced reporting's of the lowest speed:
1. _____________________________
2. _____________________________
3. _____________________________
4. _____________________________
5. _____________________________
• Participants who were asked the critical question with ‘smashed’ included reported a
mean estimated speed of 40.8 mph.
• Whereas, Participants who were asked the critical question with ‘contacted’ included
reported a mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph.
Conclusion: Leading questions affect the accuracy of eye-witness testimony.
What is the reason for this: Why do leading questions affect EWT:
1. Response bias - these questions only influence the participants to give a certain answer, it does not
actually influence the memory of the participant
2. The substitution explanation - leading questions change the eyewitness’ memory of the crime
For example, in Loftus and Palmers’ study 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”.
Loftus and Zanni (1975): Leading questions:
Aim: To investigate the effects of Leading question on the accuracy of EWT
Method: • Controlled Laboratory experiment
• 100 American students
Procedure • Participants watched a film of a car accident and were then asked a series of questions,
including the critical question: "Did you see the broken headlight?”
• Importantly, the critical question varied between participants, with some being asked "the
broken headlight" and others being asked "a broken headlight."
Results/ Participants were significantly more likely to report seeing a broken headlight when asked
Findings: "the broken headlight" compared to when asked "a broken headlight."
This suggested that the specific wording of the question influenced participants' memories of
the event.
Conclusion: The wording of questions could distort eyewitness testimony in line with the substitution
explanation
Post event discussions refers to conversations between co-witnesses or an interviewer and an eyewitness
after a crime has taken place which may contaminate a witness’ memory for the event.
These discussions may be 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. The memory of an event may
be altered or contaminated if the eyewitness discusses the event multiple times or is being questioned
numerous times.
Post even discussions can be explained by the conformity effect and memory contamination.
Post event discussion: Gabbert (2003):
Aim: To investigate the effects of discussion between co-witnesses after a crime and how that
affected the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Method: • Controlled Laboratory experiment
• Independent group design
Procedure • Participants were put into pairs but each partner watched a different video of the same
crime à they each saw unique things happen in their own video which the other pair did
not see.
• Participants were told to discuss what they had seen before individually completing a test of
recall. This was compared to a control group who did not discuss after watching the crime
Results/ • 71% of participants included details in their recall which their partner saw, but they did not
Findings: (information from the discussion).
• In the control group, where no discussion took place, there corresponding figure was 0%
Conclusion: Witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval, or because they think
the other witnesses are right and they are wrong – conformity effect / memory conformity or
as a result of the post event discussion witnesses memories are contaminated
Therefore, the conformity effect refers to witnesses often going along with each other, either to win social
approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong
Memory Contamination refers to when co-witnesses to a crime discuss the crime with one another. As a
result, they may combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories_
Evaluation Point 1:
Point: One strength of research into the effects of misleading information on EWT
Evidence: For example, through such research recent DNA exoneration cases have confirmed the
warnings of EWT researchers as Wells & Olson (2003) found that mistaken eyewitness
identification was the single largest factor that led to wrongful convictions of innocent people
Explanation: This suggests that
Link: Therefore,
Evaluation Point 2:
Point: One weakness of research into misleading information is …
Evidence: For example, Foster et al (1994) argues that what you remember as an eyewitness can have
important consequences in the real world, that are not found in such laboratory studies.
They found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery and thought
that their responses would influence their trail, their identification of the robber was more
accurate in comparison t that of a study
Explanation: These findings suggest that… (What factors may affect accuracy of EWT in real life?)
Link: Therefore,
Evaluation Point 3:
Point: One weakness of research into misleading information is
Evidence: For example, Anastasi & Rhodes (2006) found that older individuals, aged 55-78, tend to be
less accurate when providing eyewitness reports compared to younger age groups, such as
those between 18-25 and 35-45. Additionally, they found individuals across all age groups
exhibit greater accuracy when identifying people from their own age group, own age bias
Explanation: This suggest that… (What does this mean?)
Link: Therefore,
Evaluation Point 4:
Point: One weakness of into misleading information is
Evidence: For example, Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that participants usually do not want to
let down the researchers and thus when they are asked questions they don’t know the
answer to, they would guess.
Explanation: This suggests that … (What does this mean?)
Link: Therefore,
Loftus and Palmers’ research evaluation:
Sample:
Point: One weakness of Loftus and Palmers research is the sample used in the study has been
criticised for being unrepresentative.
Evidence: This is because … Why is the sample unrepresentative?
Explanation: This suggests that the study lacks… What type of validity does this lack?
Moreover, most students cannot drive… What does this mean??
Link: Therefore,
Point: One strength of Loftus and Palmer's research is that it demonstrates a high level of internal
validity.
Evidence: The researchers systematically manipulated the … What did they manipulate?
The researchers were able to have high control of the study design to ensure for little
effect… What kind of variables did they not want an effect of?
Explanation: This suggests that any observed differences in memory accuracy… What were differences a result of?
Link: Therefore,
Point: One weakness of Loftus and Palmer’s study into the effects of leading questions is that it
has been criticised for not being reflective of the real word
Evidence: This is because … Where was it conducted? What’s the problem with this?
Explanation: This means that the findings might not accurately represent.. What does it not represent? Think about the
real world.
Link: Therefore,
What is eyewitness testimony?
Eyewitness testimony is a legal term referring to an account given, by people, of an event that they have
witnessed. This may include identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene etc.
For example, an individual may be required to give a description at a trial of a robbery or a road accident
that they have seen. This includes identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene etc.
Why do psychologist investigate the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?
•
There are still a lot of misidentification in cases despite DNA testing and other means.
• 72% of wrongful convictions are due to the eyewitness misidentification (identifying the wrong person).
• Jurors (the people who decide if a defendant is guilty/innocent) are strongly influenced by eyewitness
accounts.
One factor affecting eyewitness testimony is misleading information.
Misleading information refers to incorrect information given to the eyewitness which affects their accuracy
of memory.
Leading questions:
Leading questions are a question that, either by its form or content, suggests a desired answer or leads them
to the desired answer
Loftus and Palmer (1974): Leading questions:
Aim: To investigate the effects of leading questions on the accuracy of EWT
Method: • Controlled laboratory experiment
• 45 American students
Procedure • Participants were shown seven films of different traffic accidents.
• After each film participants were given a questionnaire asking them to describe the
accident and then answer a series of questions based on the accident.
• Participants were split into five groups each asked a different critical question as part of
the series of questions:
• ‘How fast were the cars travelling when they smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted
each other?’
• Independent Variable: ____________________________.
• Dependent Variable: _____________________________.
Results/ In order rank the words that would’ve produced reporting's of the highest speed the
Findings: words you think would’ve produced reporting's of the lowest speed:
1. _____________________________
2. _____________________________
3. _____________________________
4. _____________________________
5. _____________________________
• Participants who were asked the critical question with ‘smashed’ included reported a
mean estimated speed of 40.8 mph.
• Whereas, Participants who were asked the critical question with ‘contacted’ included
reported a mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph.
Conclusion: Leading questions affect the accuracy of eye-witness testimony.
What is the reason for this: Why do leading questions affect EWT:
1. Response bias - these questions only influence the participants to give a certain answer, it does not
actually influence the memory of the participant
2. The substitution explanation - leading questions change the eyewitness’ memory of the crime
For example, in Loftus and Palmers’ study 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”.
Loftus and Zanni (1975): Leading questions:
Aim: To investigate the effects of Leading question on the accuracy of EWT
Method: • Controlled Laboratory experiment
• 100 American students
Procedure • Participants watched a film of a car accident and were then asked a series of questions,
including the critical question: "Did you see the broken headlight?”
• Importantly, the critical question varied between participants, with some being asked "the
broken headlight" and others being asked "a broken headlight."
Results/ Participants were significantly more likely to report seeing a broken headlight when asked
Findings: "the broken headlight" compared to when asked "a broken headlight."
This suggested that the specific wording of the question influenced participants' memories of
the event.
Conclusion: The wording of questions could distort eyewitness testimony in line with the substitution
explanation
Post event discussions refers to conversations between co-witnesses or an interviewer and an eyewitness
after a crime has taken place which may contaminate a witness’ memory for the event.
These discussions may be 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. The memory of an event may
be altered or contaminated if the eyewitness discusses the event multiple times or is being questioned
numerous times.
Post even discussions can be explained by the conformity effect and memory contamination.
Post event discussion: Gabbert (2003):
Aim: To investigate the effects of discussion between co-witnesses after a crime and how that
affected the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Method: • Controlled Laboratory experiment
• Independent group design
Procedure • Participants were put into pairs but each partner watched a different video of the same
crime à they each saw unique things happen in their own video which the other pair did
not see.
• Participants were told to discuss what they had seen before individually completing a test of
recall. This was compared to a control group who did not discuss after watching the crime
Results/ • 71% of participants included details in their recall which their partner saw, but they did not
Findings: (information from the discussion).
• In the control group, where no discussion took place, there corresponding figure was 0%
Conclusion: Witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval, or because they think
the other witnesses are right and they are wrong – conformity effect / memory conformity or
as a result of the post event discussion witnesses memories are contaminated
Therefore, the conformity effect refers to witnesses often going along with each other, either to win social
approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong
Memory Contamination refers to when co-witnesses to a crime discuss the crime with one another. As a
result, they may combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories_
Evaluation Point 1:
Point: One strength of research into the effects of misleading information on EWT
Evidence: For example, through such research recent DNA exoneration cases have confirmed the
warnings of EWT researchers as Wells & Olson (2003) found that mistaken eyewitness
identification was the single largest factor that led to wrongful convictions of innocent people
Explanation: This suggests that
Link: Therefore,
Evaluation Point 2:
Point: One weakness of research into misleading information is …
Evidence: For example, Foster et al (1994) argues that what you remember as an eyewitness can have
important consequences in the real world, that are not found in such laboratory studies.
They found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery and thought
that their responses would influence their trail, their identification of the robber was more
accurate in comparison t that of a study
Explanation: These findings suggest that… (What factors may affect accuracy of EWT in real life?)
Link: Therefore,
Evaluation Point 3:
Point: One weakness of research into misleading information is
Evidence: For example, Anastasi & Rhodes (2006) found that older individuals, aged 55-78, tend to be
less accurate when providing eyewitness reports compared to younger age groups, such as
those between 18-25 and 35-45. Additionally, they found individuals across all age groups
exhibit greater accuracy when identifying people from their own age group, own age bias
Explanation: This suggest that… (What does this mean?)
Link: Therefore,
Evaluation Point 4:
Point: One weakness of into misleading information is
Evidence: For example, Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that participants usually do not want to
let down the researchers and thus when they are asked questions they don’t know the
answer to, they would guess.
Explanation: This suggests that … (What does this mean?)
Link: Therefore,
Loftus and Palmers’ research evaluation:
Sample:
Point: One weakness of Loftus and Palmers research is the sample used in the study has been
criticised for being unrepresentative.
Evidence: This is because … Why is the sample unrepresentative?
Explanation: This suggests that the study lacks… What type of validity does this lack?
Moreover, most students cannot drive… What does this mean??
Link: Therefore,
Point: One strength of Loftus and Palmer's research is that it demonstrates a high level of internal
validity.
Evidence: The researchers systematically manipulated the … What did they manipulate?
The researchers were able to have high control of the study design to ensure for little
effect… What kind of variables did they not want an effect of?
Explanation: This suggests that any observed differences in memory accuracy… What were differences a result of?
Link: Therefore,
Point: One weakness of Loftus and Palmer’s study into the effects of leading questions is that it
has been criticised for not being reflective of the real word
Evidence: This is because … Where was it conducted? What’s the problem with this?
Explanation: This means that the findings might not accurately represent.. What does it not represent? Think about the
real world.
Link: Therefore,
