Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Leading Questions and Post Event Discussion - Coggle Diagram
Leading Questions and Post Event Discussion
Loftus & Palmer
Misleading Information
: Incorrect information given to the eyewitness usually after the event.
Aim
: To investigate whether misleading information distorts the accuracy of an Eye Witness' immediate recall.
Method
: 45 students were shown 7 films of different traffic accidents in a lab situation. All saw the same film and were then asked a series of questions and one CRITICAL question 'How fast were the cars going when they
__
each other?'. The different verbs used were smashes, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.
Results
: Smashed = 40.8. Collided = 39.9. Bumped = 38.1. Hit = 34. Contacted = 31.8.
Conclusions
: The form of questioning can have an effect on witnesses memory. Misleading information can cause material to be altered - making memory less accurate.
(+) Lab Experiment - High Control
: Establish cause and effect. High control over EV (heard same instructions and video clips). IV (verb used) affected the DV (estimates). Unlikely to be affected by confounding variables.
(-) Low Ecological Validity
: Watched a video, won't have reacted the same they would have done if it was in real life - not as distressed as they would have been.
(-) Low Population Validity
: American undergraduate students. More or less driving experiences than others - more likely to be affected by demand characteristics if aware of Loftus' work. Cannot generalise to the wider population.
(-) Individual differences not taken into account:
Anastasi and Rhodes found than young and middle aged participants were significantly more accurate than older p's and all age groups were more accurate in identifying their own age group - cannot generalise to people of all ages.
(+) Practical Applications
: EWT is not always accurate and that misleading information can distort the accuracy of EWT, therefore, when witnesses are interviewed police avoid leading questions. Economic implications - more accurate = less appeals which means more money will be saved in the criminal justice system.
Gabbert et al
Post Event Discussion
: occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co-witnesses or other people. May influence the accuracy.
Aim
: To investigate the effect of PED discussion as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT.
Method
: Participants watch a video of the same crime, filmed from different points of view. They were then asked to discuss the video or have no discussion (control).
Results
: They found that 71% of participants who had the discussion reported aspects of the event that the did not see in the video but picked up from the discussion - where as - in the control group - this figure was 0%.
Conclusion
: Witnesses often go along with each other, to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong - memory conformity.
(+) Practical Application
: Now understand than EWT is not always accurate and that PED discussion can distort EWT and therefore police should aim to avoid witnesses talking to one another.
(-) Low Ecological Validity
: Video of a crime is not the same as a real life crime - more likely to not respond in the same way - less anxious and distressed.
(+) Lab Experiment - High Control
: Establishes cause and effect. Control over EV. We can be confident that the IV (discussion or non) affects the DV (% of participants that provided info) Unlikely to be affected by confounding variables.
EWT:
The ability of people to remember the details of events, such as accidents and crimes when they themselves has observed.