Memory- factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information

Leading questions
1. Loftus and Palmer, 1974
  1. Asked participants to watch a video of a car crash
  2. They then asked questions about the crash, with one leading question
  3. 'How fast were the cars going when they ___________________ into each other?'
    1. In the gap, different verbs were used
      1. Hit
      2. Smashed
        Average speed: 40.5mph
      3. Bumped
      4. Collided
      5. Contacted
        Average speed: 31.8mph
2. Response bias explanation
  1. Wording has no effect on memories, but affects how participants choose to respond
3. Substitution explanation
  1. Wording changed participants' memory of the crash
    1. Participants who heard 'smashed' were more likely to also report broken glass, even though there was none
Post event discussion
1. Gabbert, 2003
  1. Participants all watched a video of the same crime, but from different perspectives. This meant they could see different elements of the crime scene.
  2. The participants then discussed what they had seen.For example, one participant could see the title of a book being carried while the other could not
  3. 71% of participants reported elements of the crime that they had not seen
    1. No participants in a control group in which there was no post event discussion reported anything they had not seen
Evaluation
1. Real life application
  1. Research into misleading information has useful application in EWTs
    1. Useful for the legal system
2. Artificial tasks
  1. The tasks given to participants were not real- they watched film clips. Were they actually there, their response may have been different
3. Individual differences
  1. Age
    1. Elderly people are less accurate in EWTs
4. Demand characteristics
  1. Want to be more helpful to the researcher

Nächster

Memory- factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Grace Fawcitt vor fast 7 Jahre