Memory model answers
Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony; misleading information, leading questions, post-
event discussion, anxiety.
Misleading information covers both leading questions and post-event, but you may be asked on them
individually.
- Leading questions = Loftus and Palmer (1974);
45 students divided into 5 groups, car crash. Smashed/collided/bumped/contacted. 40.5mph 31.8mph.
150 students divided into 3 groups. Smashed/hit + control. Broken glass? 32% yes, 14% yes, 12% yes.
Distorted memory of event and made participants recall something they didn’t see.
- Post event discussion = Gabbert et al (2003);
60 students, girl stealing wallet. 2 vids and post event discussion. 71% in co-witness groups recalled
something they had not actually seen. 60% said she was guilty even though they didn’t see her commit a
crime.
Leading questions A03 – point 1 (criticism – labatory experiment)
One limitation of Loftus’ research is that it is a laboratory experiment. Participants in Loftus’ study watched videos of
car crashes before providing speed estimates. This is an example of an artificial task. This matters because watching a
video of a car crash is not the same as witnessing a real-life accident. Compared to real-life witnesses, the
participants knew they were supposed to be paying close attention to the video waiting for something to happen and
may allow themselves to be more influenced by leading questions with the aim of being more helpful to the
experimenter and the study. Participants who witness real accidents may not have been paying as close attention to
the details of the scene as they will not know an event is about to happen. Real witnesses will also realize that there a
likely consequence to giving false information, and therefore they may be influenced differently by leading questions.
This means Loftus’ study may lack external validity when trying to explain the impact of leading questions on the
accuracy of EWT in the real world and we are unable to conclude if actual eye-witnesses with stronger connections
would be susceptible to leading questions in the same way.
Post event A03 – point 1 (criticism – labatory experiment)
One limitation of Gabbert’s research is that it is a laboratory experiment. Participant’s in Gabbert’s study watched
videos of a girl stealing money from a wallet rather than witnessing a real-life crime. This means they used an
artificial task. This matters because watching a video of a crime is not the same as witnessing a real-life crime.
Compared to real-life witnesses, the participants knew they were supposed to be paying close attention to the video
waiting for something to happen and may tell the interviewer information that themselves might not have seen but
wanted to look attentive and helpful to the researcher. Differently, participants who witness real crimes may not be
expecting the crime to happen and therefore would have in fact been paying less attention to the details of the
scenario. This may mean that they are more influenced by subsequent post-event discussion. Additionally, real
witnesses will also realize there are consequences to their claims and may be differently influenced by post -event
discussion if they themselves didn’t see something. This means Gabbert’s study may lack external validity when trying
to explain the impact of leading questions on the accuracy of EWT in the real world.
Leading questions A03 – point 2 (supporting evidence)
However, there has been supporting evidence for the effect of leading questions on eye-witness accounts from Loftus
& Braun et al. (2002). This study involved college students who had visited Disneyland as children and were asked to
evaluate advertising material for Disneyland. Some were given accurate information, and some were given
information that included misleading information about Bugs Bunny (not a Disney character) or Ariel (not introduced
at the time of their childhood). Those in the misleading info group were more likely to report having shaken hands
with these characters. This demonstrates how misleading information can create a false memory of events and
encourage people to think of a memory that never in fact occurred.
Post – event A03 – point 2 (supporting evidence)
Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony; misleading information, leading questions, post-
event discussion, anxiety.
Misleading information covers both leading questions and post-event, but you may be asked on them
individually.
- Leading questions = Loftus and Palmer (1974);
45 students divided into 5 groups, car crash. Smashed/collided/bumped/contacted. 40.5mph 31.8mph.
150 students divided into 3 groups. Smashed/hit + control. Broken glass? 32% yes, 14% yes, 12% yes.
Distorted memory of event and made participants recall something they didn’t see.
- Post event discussion = Gabbert et al (2003);
60 students, girl stealing wallet. 2 vids and post event discussion. 71% in co-witness groups recalled
something they had not actually seen. 60% said she was guilty even though they didn’t see her commit a
crime.
Leading questions A03 – point 1 (criticism – labatory experiment)
One limitation of Loftus’ research is that it is a laboratory experiment. Participants in Loftus’ study watched videos of
car crashes before providing speed estimates. This is an example of an artificial task. This matters because watching a
video of a car crash is not the same as witnessing a real-life accident. Compared to real-life witnesses, the
participants knew they were supposed to be paying close attention to the video waiting for something to happen and
may allow themselves to be more influenced by leading questions with the aim of being more helpful to the
experimenter and the study. Participants who witness real accidents may not have been paying as close attention to
the details of the scene as they will not know an event is about to happen. Real witnesses will also realize that there a
likely consequence to giving false information, and therefore they may be influenced differently by leading questions.
This means Loftus’ study may lack external validity when trying to explain the impact of leading questions on the
accuracy of EWT in the real world and we are unable to conclude if actual eye-witnesses with stronger connections
would be susceptible to leading questions in the same way.
Post event A03 – point 1 (criticism – labatory experiment)
One limitation of Gabbert’s research is that it is a laboratory experiment. Participant’s in Gabbert’s study watched
videos of a girl stealing money from a wallet rather than witnessing a real-life crime. This means they used an
artificial task. This matters because watching a video of a crime is not the same as witnessing a real-life crime.
Compared to real-life witnesses, the participants knew they were supposed to be paying close attention to the video
waiting for something to happen and may tell the interviewer information that themselves might not have seen but
wanted to look attentive and helpful to the researcher. Differently, participants who witness real crimes may not be
expecting the crime to happen and therefore would have in fact been paying less attention to the details of the
scenario. This may mean that they are more influenced by subsequent post-event discussion. Additionally, real
witnesses will also realize there are consequences to their claims and may be differently influenced by post -event
discussion if they themselves didn’t see something. This means Gabbert’s study may lack external validity when trying
to explain the impact of leading questions on the accuracy of EWT in the real world.
Leading questions A03 – point 2 (supporting evidence)
However, there has been supporting evidence for the effect of leading questions on eye-witness accounts from Loftus
& Braun et al. (2002). This study involved college students who had visited Disneyland as children and were asked to
evaluate advertising material for Disneyland. Some were given accurate information, and some were given
information that included misleading information about Bugs Bunny (not a Disney character) or Ariel (not introduced
at the time of their childhood). Those in the misleading info group were more likely to report having shaken hands
with these characters. This demonstrates how misleading information can create a false memory of events and
encourage people to think of a memory that never in fact occurred.
Post – event A03 – point 2 (supporting evidence)
