AQA Psychology A level Memory - Evaluate research into the effects of misleading information on eyew

What the spec says: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony: misleading information, including leading questions and post-event discussion

The A01 for this topic is fairly simple: include both Loftus and Palmer studies, what they show about memory and why.

EVALUATE RESEARCH INTO THE EFFECTS OF MISLEADING INFORMATION ON EWT

One major strength of Loftus and Palmer's research is that it has significant real life application and has helped to assess the consequences of inaccurate EWT. For example, Loftus believes that leading questions can distort memory and so police officers need to be careful about the phrasing of questions. This has led to the use of cognitive interview where studies such as Fisher et al found that real life CI performance produced 47% more useful info when using this method. This suggests that research into EWT can make a positive difference to people’s lives by improving the way the legal system works so that inaccurate EWTs don’t lead to innocent people facing injustice for crimes they may not have committed.

Also, several other studies have supported the findings of L+P which shows it has reliability. Lindsay showed a series of slides to pps in which a man steals some things from an office. The pps were then given an account of the crime containing misleading information and were told to not pay attention to the information given. However, their recall of the event was still affected by the post-event discussion which suggests that misleading information affects how people choose to recall an event as the new information the pps were given changed the way the memory was stored. The use of the lab experiments and controlled environments have allowed Loftus to exhibit high control over the variables making the research replicable and provide more confidence in the research findings.

However, a limitation of research into misleading information is that both the studies were conducted in artificial settings. Watching a video of an accident or crime is very different to experiencing a real life event as real-life incidents often take place unexpectedly and in an atmosphere of high tension. Foster found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery important to a real trial their identification of the robber was much more accurate than if they thought it wasn’t important. Therefore, research into misleading information lacks ecological validity because pps know that, no matter how serious or horrific the incident, the answers they give will not have any significant effects. This also implies that leading questions have less effect on the accuracy of EWT when the consequences are more serious, because participants know that their responses really do matter and lab studies of EWT may underestimate its accuracy.

Furthermore, real life research by Yuille and Cutshall contradicts the findings by L+P. Y+C interviewed 13 people who had witnessed an armed robbery in Canada. They were interviewed 1 or 4 months later and were told to describe the event and answer questions - two of which were misleading. It was found that pps were still able to recall the event accurately 4 months later despite the misleading questions asked. This challenges L+P's original research and suggests that EWT may in fact we more accurate in real life. Yuille and Cutshall suggested the important information in real-life crime is not easily distorted - additionally, there is a weapons focus effect where people to tend to focus on the weapon rather than the other details.

Zaragosa and McCloskey argue that many answers given in lab studies of EWT are the result of demand characteristics. This occurs when participants try to work out what is expected of them, by using cues in the procedure. For example, in EWT studies, pps may see films of car accidents or be asked questions that are worded in a certain way and conclude that a certain response is expected of them. They may then behave to fulfill those expectations or to undermine them. Hence, pps may not be behaving naturally and this reduces the validity of research studies because they are no longer measuring the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Useful links:

https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/misleading-information-in-eye-witness-testimony-ewt

http://www.psychteacher.co.uk/memory-AS/page96/EWT-misleading-information.html

https://quizlet.com/7554529/eyewitness-testimony-misleading-information-cognitive-psychology-flash-cards/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGYlHyv-WlQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrXSU95FpKA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcML9mhCSjY