✏️Eyewitness testimony: Misleading
information
Loftus and Palmer carried out a study on leading questions, which involved participants watching
film clips of car accidents. The participants were then asked questions about the speed at that the
cars were travelling in the video. There were five groups, which were each given a different verb in
the question, such as hit, contacted, smashed, bumped and collided. The findings showed that the
word contacted led to people saying the cars were travelling at around 31 mph, whilst the word
smashed led people to say the cars were travelling at 40 mph. This shows that leading questions
caused the participants to remember different things, despite all having watched the same video.
The leading questions can affect eyewitness testimony because the wording of a question can
influence the type of answers that are given. The leading questions can also interfere with the
original memory, causing elements of the memory to be inaccurate.
Gabbert et al. carried out a study on the post-event discussion where participants watched videos of
a crime all from different angles. This means that some elements of the crime were visible in some
versions of the video, but not in other versions of the video. The participants were paired, with each
person in the pair seeing a different video, and so they were then asked to discuss with each other
what they had seen in the video before completing a recall test. The study found that the
participants wrongly recalled 71% of the information, meaning they recalled information that they
had not seen in the video but had discussed with each other. A control group who didn't discuss had
no errors when they recalled the info. This provides evidence for memory conformity. Post-event
discussion can affect eyewitness testimony because when witnesses discuss the crime with each
other the discussion can mix with the witness's memory, which is called memory contamination.
Memory conformity is also shown which is when witnesses go along with what other people say
because they think they are right.
A strength is that there is a real-world application to the justice system. The consequence of having
inaccurate eyewitness testimony is serious and so police officers should be careful how they phrase
questions to witnesses. Psychologists can sometimes be called into court as expert witnesses in trials
to explain the limits of eyewitness testimony to juries. This means that people can be proven
innocent and prevent faulty convictions based on inaccurate eyewitness testimony.
However, a counterpoint is that studies taking place in labs are likely to be less accurate because
participants are just watching videos instead of experiencing the crime. This means that there is
likely to be less stress involved, and so eyewitness testimony might be more accurate than the
studies suggest.
A limitation is that there is challenging evidence. One researcher found that participants find it
easier to recall the main information better than the peripheral information even when they were
asked misleading questions. This is because people's information was focused on the central
information and therefore these memories were resistant to misleading questions. This means that
the original memories survived and weren't distorted which isn't predicted by other studies.
Another limitation is that there is evidence against memory conformity. Two researchers got
participants to discuss film clips they had seen. In one clip the mugger had dark brown hair and in
the other clip, the mugger had light brown hair. After discussing the information with each other, the
participants recall a blend of what they had seen and what they had heard when discussing, such as
saying the mugger had medium brown hair. This means that memory conformity doesn't happen
because of post-event discussion.
information
Loftus and Palmer carried out a study on leading questions, which involved participants watching
film clips of car accidents. The participants were then asked questions about the speed at that the
cars were travelling in the video. There were five groups, which were each given a different verb in
the question, such as hit, contacted, smashed, bumped and collided. The findings showed that the
word contacted led to people saying the cars were travelling at around 31 mph, whilst the word
smashed led people to say the cars were travelling at 40 mph. This shows that leading questions
caused the participants to remember different things, despite all having watched the same video.
The leading questions can affect eyewitness testimony because the wording of a question can
influence the type of answers that are given. The leading questions can also interfere with the
original memory, causing elements of the memory to be inaccurate.
Gabbert et al. carried out a study on the post-event discussion where participants watched videos of
a crime all from different angles. This means that some elements of the crime were visible in some
versions of the video, but not in other versions of the video. The participants were paired, with each
person in the pair seeing a different video, and so they were then asked to discuss with each other
what they had seen in the video before completing a recall test. The study found that the
participants wrongly recalled 71% of the information, meaning they recalled information that they
had not seen in the video but had discussed with each other. A control group who didn't discuss had
no errors when they recalled the info. This provides evidence for memory conformity. Post-event
discussion can affect eyewitness testimony because when witnesses discuss the crime with each
other the discussion can mix with the witness's memory, which is called memory contamination.
Memory conformity is also shown which is when witnesses go along with what other people say
because they think they are right.
A strength is that there is a real-world application to the justice system. The consequence of having
inaccurate eyewitness testimony is serious and so police officers should be careful how they phrase
questions to witnesses. Psychologists can sometimes be called into court as expert witnesses in trials
to explain the limits of eyewitness testimony to juries. This means that people can be proven
innocent and prevent faulty convictions based on inaccurate eyewitness testimony.
However, a counterpoint is that studies taking place in labs are likely to be less accurate because
participants are just watching videos instead of experiencing the crime. This means that there is
likely to be less stress involved, and so eyewitness testimony might be more accurate than the
studies suggest.
A limitation is that there is challenging evidence. One researcher found that participants find it
easier to recall the main information better than the peripheral information even when they were
asked misleading questions. This is because people's information was focused on the central
information and therefore these memories were resistant to misleading questions. This means that
the original memories survived and weren't distorted which isn't predicted by other studies.
Another limitation is that there is evidence against memory conformity. Two researchers got
participants to discuss film clips they had seen. In one clip the mugger had dark brown hair and in
the other clip, the mugger had light brown hair. After discussing the information with each other, the
participants recall a blend of what they had seen and what they had heard when discussing, such as
saying the mugger had medium brown hair. This means that memory conformity doesn't happen
because of post-event discussion.
