Discuss research on the effect of misleading information on eyewitness testimony
Eyewitness testimony, which is now referred to as eyewitness memory, is the account given by a
person who has witnessed a crime, offering a view to help identify the perpetrator of the crime.
While it frequently plays a significant part in criminal investigations, eyewitness testimony is not
always accurate. This is confirmed by the DNA project, which revealed that 72% if convictions
involving eyewitness testimony were incorrect. EWT goes through 3 distinct stages. Initially, the
witness encodes details of the event into their LTM. This information may be fragmented or distorted
as many crimes take place at night or are very brief. The witness then retains the information for
approximately 3 month, although memories can be forgotten, lost, interfered with, etc. Eventually,
the witness retrieves the memory. However, the absence of cues, leading questions or post event
discussion can affect the accuracy of what is recalled.
Loftus and Palmer (1974) explored the effects of leading questions on the accuracy of recall. 45
students were shown a video of a car accident and then asked to complete a questionnaire. The
independent variable in the experiment was the verb used in each of the sentences of the
questionnaire: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted (e.g. how fast was the car going when
they “smashed” into each other?). The results of the questionnaire revealed that the participants
that were exposed to the verb “smashed” said that, on average, the car went 40.8mph whereas the
verb “contacted” evoked an average response of 31.8mph. While this experiment proves that leading
questions have an effect on recall, there is only a minor difference between the participants’
responses. Furthermore, the study is lab based and therefore lacks a relevance to real life, especially
as the participants are asked to watch a video of a car crash rather than a real life car crash, which is
also quite artificial. The lab based nature of this study also demonstrates its lack of ecological validity.
Additionally, these results may have been obtained due to demand characteristics, where the
participants their responses to fit what they think the researcher wants.
In addition to this study, there are also other pieces of research supporting false memories. One of
them is a study carried out by Loftus and Pickrell (1995). 24 participants aged 18-53 were given 4
stories about their childhood that was provided to them by relatives. However, one of these stories
was false and involved them getting lost in a shopping centre, being found by an elderly lady and
then being returned back to their parents. Participants were asked to report what they could recall
about the events and asked to say “I don’t remember” if they couldn’t remember anything. 68% of
true incidents were recalled whereas 24% of false ones were recalled. This, therefore, implies that
false memories can be created through the power of suggestion. Likewise, Loftus (1975) also
demonstrated how false memories can be created. Participants were shown a video of a car ride and,
a week later, were asked “how fast was the car going when it passed the barn?” when, in actual fact,
there was no barn. 17% of participants recalled seeing a barn, which demonstrates that post event
information when given a week later can affect recall. This also acts as further evidence to support
the notion that false memories can be created by the power of suggestion.
Evidence has suggested that the memory of an event can also be altered or contaminated by post
event discussion (discussing events with others) and/or being questioned multiple times. The
conformity effect (yielding to group pressures) may lead co-witnesses to reach a consensus view of
what actually happened. This was demonstrated in an experiment by Gabbert et al (2003).
Participants were in pairs where each partner watched a different video of the same event so that
they each viewed unique items. Pairs in one condition were encouraged to discuss the event before
each partner was individually asked to report what they had seen. 71% of witnesses who had
discussed the event went on to mistakenly recall items acquired during the discussion. This research
therefore supports the idea that post event discussion can affect recall and alter the memory of an
event.
Eyewitness testimony, which is now referred to as eyewitness memory, is the account given by a
person who has witnessed a crime, offering a view to help identify the perpetrator of the crime.
While it frequently plays a significant part in criminal investigations, eyewitness testimony is not
always accurate. This is confirmed by the DNA project, which revealed that 72% if convictions
involving eyewitness testimony were incorrect. EWT goes through 3 distinct stages. Initially, the
witness encodes details of the event into their LTM. This information may be fragmented or distorted
as many crimes take place at night or are very brief. The witness then retains the information for
approximately 3 month, although memories can be forgotten, lost, interfered with, etc. Eventually,
the witness retrieves the memory. However, the absence of cues, leading questions or post event
discussion can affect the accuracy of what is recalled.
Loftus and Palmer (1974) explored the effects of leading questions on the accuracy of recall. 45
students were shown a video of a car accident and then asked to complete a questionnaire. The
independent variable in the experiment was the verb used in each of the sentences of the
questionnaire: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted (e.g. how fast was the car going when
they “smashed” into each other?). The results of the questionnaire revealed that the participants
that were exposed to the verb “smashed” said that, on average, the car went 40.8mph whereas the
verb “contacted” evoked an average response of 31.8mph. While this experiment proves that leading
questions have an effect on recall, there is only a minor difference between the participants’
responses. Furthermore, the study is lab based and therefore lacks a relevance to real life, especially
as the participants are asked to watch a video of a car crash rather than a real life car crash, which is
also quite artificial. The lab based nature of this study also demonstrates its lack of ecological validity.
Additionally, these results may have been obtained due to demand characteristics, where the
participants their responses to fit what they think the researcher wants.
In addition to this study, there are also other pieces of research supporting false memories. One of
them is a study carried out by Loftus and Pickrell (1995). 24 participants aged 18-53 were given 4
stories about their childhood that was provided to them by relatives. However, one of these stories
was false and involved them getting lost in a shopping centre, being found by an elderly lady and
then being returned back to their parents. Participants were asked to report what they could recall
about the events and asked to say “I don’t remember” if they couldn’t remember anything. 68% of
true incidents were recalled whereas 24% of false ones were recalled. This, therefore, implies that
false memories can be created through the power of suggestion. Likewise, Loftus (1975) also
demonstrated how false memories can be created. Participants were shown a video of a car ride and,
a week later, were asked “how fast was the car going when it passed the barn?” when, in actual fact,
there was no barn. 17% of participants recalled seeing a barn, which demonstrates that post event
information when given a week later can affect recall. This also acts as further evidence to support
the notion that false memories can be created by the power of suggestion.
Evidence has suggested that the memory of an event can also be altered or contaminated by post
event discussion (discussing events with others) and/or being questioned multiple times. The
conformity effect (yielding to group pressures) may lead co-witnesses to reach a consensus view of
what actually happened. This was demonstrated in an experiment by Gabbert et al (2003).
Participants were in pairs where each partner watched a different video of the same event so that
they each viewed unique items. Pairs in one condition were encouraged to discuss the event before
each partner was individually asked to report what they had seen. 71% of witnesses who had
discussed the event went on to mistakenly recall items acquired during the discussion. This research
therefore supports the idea that post event discussion can affect recall and alter the memory of an
event.
