– The eyewitness testimony is the evidence provided in court by a person who witnesses a crime, with a view to identifying the perpetrator of the crime
– Eyewitness testimonies are a critical role in criminal investigations but there’s evidence to say that they are not accurate
– Misleading information is one of the reasons why eyewitness testimonies are not reliable
– Misleading information is the incorrect information given to the eyewitness – usually after the event.
– It can take many forms, such as leading questions and post-event discussion between co-witnesses and/or other people.
LEADING QUESTIONS
– A leading question is a question that because of the way it is phrased leads a witness to the desired answer, which contributes to misleading information
– Eg. “Was the knife in the left hand” leads the witness to say that it was in the left hand
– Loftus and Palmer (1974) did a study on leading questions
PROCEDURE
– 45 students were shown seven films of different traffic accidents
– After each film they were given a questionnaire about the accident
– In the critical question (leading question) participants were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling: ‘about how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?’
– There were five groups of participants; each was given a different verb: hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed.
FINDINGS
– The verb contacted was the lowest mean speed estimate of 31.8mph
– The verb smashed was the highest mean speed estimate of 40.5mph.
– Leading questions effect the eyewitness recall of an event.
WHY DO LEADING QUESTIONS AFFECT EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
THE RESPONSE-BIAS EXPLANATION
– Suggests that the wording of the question has no real effect on the participants’ memories, but just influence how they decide to answer.
– A leading question using the word ‘smashed’ encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate.
THE SUBSTITUTION EXPLANATION
– The wording of the leading question actually changes the participant’s memory of the film clip.
– This was demonstrated because participants who originally heard ‘smashed’ later were more likely to report seeing broken glass (there was none) than those who heard ‘hit’.
– The critical verb altered their memory of the incident.
POST-EVENT DISCUSSION
– The memory of an event may also be altered or contaminated through discussing events with others and/or being questioned multiple times
– When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
– This is because they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
CONFORMITY EFFECT
– Co-witnesses may reach a consensus view of what actually happened
– The was investigated by Fiona Gabbert et al (2003)
PROCEDURE
– They studied participants in pairs
– Each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
– This meant that each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not.
– Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
FINDINGS
– The researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the discussion.
– The corresponding figure in the control group where there was no discussion was 0%.
CONCLUSIONS
– Gabbert concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong.
– They called this memory conformity.
EVALUATION OF MISLEADING INFORMATION
STRENGTHS
Real Life Application
– Hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of EWT can be very serious
– Loftus believes that leading questions can be distorting to memory
– Therefore, police officers need to be very careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses.
– Psychologists believe that these real-life applications can make an important positive difference to the lives of real people, for instance by improving the way the legal system works and by appearing in court trials as expert witnesses.
– Therefore, this demonstrates the important role of research into leading questions and EWT
Research Support
– There has been a considerable support for research on the effect of misleading information.
– For example, not as conducted and memorable study involving a cut-out of Bugs Bunny.
– College students who has visited Disneyland as children were asked to evaluate the advertising material about Disneyland
– This contained misleading information about Bugs Bunny (not a Disney character) or Arial (not introduced the time of their childhood).
– Participants assigned to the Bugs Bunny or Ariel groups were more likely to report of having shaken hands with these characters than the control group, who had no misleading information.
– This shows how powerful misleading information can be in creating an inaccurate, false memory.
LIMITATIONS
Artificial Tasks
– A limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s study is that their participants watched film clips of car accidents
– This is a very different experience from witnessing a real accident, mainly because such clips lack the stress of a real accident.
– There is some evidence that emotions can have an influence on memory.
– This is a limitation because studies that use such artificial tasks may tell us very little about how leading questions affect EWT in cases of real accidents or crimes.
Individual Differences
– There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports
– All age groups are more accurate when identifying people of their own age group- own age bias.
– Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear less accurate but in fact this is not true.
– This means that individual differences play a big factor in EWT.