Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Misleading Information affecting EWT - Coggle Diagram
Misleading Information affecting EWT
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Aims
-Investigate accuracy of memory after witnessing a car accident - to see if leading questions distort accuracy of an eye-witness immediate recall
Procedure
45 students (reduces population validity)
shown films of traffic accidents (lacks ecological validity - mundane realism)
questions after included a critical one about speed of the car containing the verb 'hit', 'smashed', 'collided', 'bumped' and 'contacted'
Findings
group with verb smashed estimated higher speed (41 m/h)
group with verb contacted estimated lowest speed (30 m/h)
Conclusions
leading questions (post-event info) can have a significant effect on memory (either on original memory or on recall)
Why do leading
questions affect EWT
response-bias explanation - know in experiment, know answer is wrong but gives answer that makes sense in the question
Suggests wording of question doesn't affect memory - but influences how they answer (demand characteristic - 'smashed' encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate
substitution explanation - wording of question actually changes the memory
Loftus & Palmer (1974) SECOND EXPERIMENT
Findings
tested a different set of participants after a week
those given 'smashed' were more likely to recollect broken glass (there was none)
supports substitution explanation
Conclusions
shows significant effect of post-event info on later recall of events &/or the way info is stored
Post-event Discussion
Gabbert et al (2003)
participants watched a video of the same crime but from different points of view
participants then discussed what they had seen then completed a test of recall
Findings:
71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see compared to the 0% of a control group where there had been no discussion
Why does post-event discussion affect EWT
memory contamination - when witnesses discuss it with each other, their EWT may become altered/distorted
they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
memory conformity - witnesses often go a long with each other - either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses and they are wrong
(unlike memory contamination) the actual memory is unchanged
EVALUATION OF FACTORS AFFECTING MISLEADING INFORMATION
!STRENGTH!
real-world application
has important, practical uses in criminal justice system
consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious
psychologists can be expert witnesses in court as they explain the limits of EWT
!LIMITATION!
Loftus & Palmer's participants watch films in a lab - very different experience from witnessing a real event
EWT may be more dependable than many studies suggest
!LIMITATION!
evidence against substitution
Sutherland & Hayne (2001) showed participants a video clip
when participants later asked misleading questions - recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral ones
suggests original memories for central details survived - not predicted by substitution explanation
!LIMITATION!
evidence challenging
memory conformity
Skagerberg & Wright (2008) showed participants film clips (2 versions - muggers hair dark brown in one and light brown in the other)
participants discussed clips in pairs - each having seen different versions
they often did not report what they had seen in the clips/what they heard from co-witnesses - but a blend of the 2
suggests memory itself is distorted rather than just conforming