Eyewitness Testimony (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading Information
Understanding schemas and memory reconstruction
Memory is not like a video recording that perfectly captures events. Instead, our minds use schemas - mental frameworks based on past experiences, expectations, and knowledge - to interpret and store information. These schemas help us make sense of the world by filling gaps in our memory, but they can also lead to inaccurate recall.
When witnessing an event, we don't simply store facts as they happened. Instead, we reconstruct memories using both what we actually witnessed and what our schemas suggest should have occurred. This process makes eyewitness testimony vulnerable to distortion and can result in false memories being created.
Understanding memory reconstruction is crucial because it explains why two people can witness the same event but remember different details. Our brains actively construct memories rather than passively recording them, making memory inherently unreliable.
What is misleading information?
Misleading information refers to incorrect details that are introduced after an event has occurred, which can alter how that event is remembered. This information suggests a particular response or interpretation that may not align with what actually happened.
Research consistently demonstrates that eyewitness testimony can be significantly affected by experiences that occur after witnessing an event. Two primary forms of misleading information have been identified: leading questions and post-event discussion.
Leading questions
Leading questions are questions phrased in a way that encourages or prompts a specific response. These questions increase the likelihood that a person's existing schemas will influence their answer in a particular direction.
Example: Leading Question Impact
Instead of asking: "How fast was the car going when it contacted the other vehicle?"
A leading question asks: "How fast was the car going when it smashed into the other vehicle?"
The word "smashed" presupposes a more severe impact than "contacted," which can significantly influence speed estimates and subsequent memory recall.
Post-event discussion
Post-event discussion involves information being added to a memory after the original event has taken place. Research indicates that false memories can be created through misleading information provided during post-event experiences.
This might occur when witnesses discuss an event with others, read news reports, or are questioned by investigators using leading questions. The additional information becomes integrated with the original memory, making it difficult to distinguish between what was actually witnessed and what was suggested later.
Critical Point: Once misleading information is incorporated into memory, people often cannot tell the difference between what they actually witnessed and what was suggested to them afterwards. This makes the timing of when information is gathered crucial in legal proceedings.
Key research studies
Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Car crash speed estimates
Landmark Study: The Power of Question Wording
Participants: 45 university students
Aim: To investigate whether participants' estimates of vehicle speed could be influenced by the wording of questions about accidents they witnessed on video
Procedure:
- Students viewed seven video clips of car accidents
- After each clip, they provided written accounts and answered specific questions
- The critical question asked about speed using different verbs: "contacted," "hit," "bumped," "collided," or "smashed"
- In a second experiment, 150 students viewed a car crash video and were asked either about cars that "smashed," "hit," or served as a control group
- One week later, all participants were asked if they recalled seeing broken glass (though none existed in the video)
Key Findings:
- Mean speed estimates varied significantly based on the verb used:
- "Contacted": 31.8 mph
- "Hit": 34.0 mph
- "Bumped": 38.1 mph
- "Collided": 39.3 mph
- "Smashed": 40.8 mph
- Participants in the "smashed" condition were twice as likely to report seeing broken glass compared to other groups
Evaluation: Strengths
- Controlled laboratory conditions allowed for precise measurement of the misleading information effect
- Clear demonstration that subtle changes in question wording can significantly impact memory recall
- Replication across two experiments strengthens the reliability of findings
Evaluation: Weaknesses
- Artificial laboratory setting may lack ecological validity compared to real-world eyewitness situations
- Participants may have responded to demand characteristics rather than genuine memory changes
- Limited emotional impact of watching videos compared to witnessing actual traumatic events
Loftus (1975) - Post-event information study
Supporting Evidence for False Memory Creation
Loftus demonstrated that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car and were later asked "How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?" (when no barn existed) subsequently recalled seeing a barn one week later. This finding supports the idea that information introduced after an event can become incorporated into memory.
Loftus and Pickrell (1995) - "Lost in the mall" study
Groundbreaking Research: Creating Entirely False Memories
This study investigated whether entirely false childhood memories could be implanted through suggestion. Participants were presented with four childhood stories - three true (provided by family members) and one false story about being lost in a shopping centre aged five and rescued by an elderly person.
Results:
- 68% of true incidents were recalled
- 29% of false incidents were "recalled" by participants
- False memories contained less detail and clarity than genuine memories
Significance: This research demonstrated that false memories can be created through suggestion, though they tend to be less vivid than authentic memories.
Loftus and Pickrell (2003) - Disneyland and Bugs Bunny study
Advanced Study: Advertising and False Memory
Participants: 120 students who had visited Disneyland in childhood
Aim: To investigate whether false memories could be created through advertising-style suggestions
Procedure:
- Participants were divided into four groups and shown fake Disneyland advertisements
- Group 1: Read fake advert with no cartoon characters
- Group 2: Read fake advert with no cartoon characters, saw cardboard Bugs Bunny figure
- Group 3: Read fake advert featuring Bugs Bunny
- Group 4: Read fake advert featuring Bugs Bunny and saw the cardboard figure
- All completed questionnaires about their Disneyland memories
Key Findings:
- 30% of Group 3 and 40% of Group 4 participants reported remembering meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyland
- Those exposed to misleading Bugs Bunny information were more likely to relate the character to other Disneyland experiences
Note: Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros character who would never appear at Disney parks
Evaluation: Strengths
- Used real-life childhood memories rather than laboratory-created scenarios
- Demonstrated the power of subtle suggestion in creating false memories
- Has practical applications for understanding how advertising might influence memory
Evaluation: Weaknesses
- Still conducted in artificial research conditions
- Participants may have been responding to social desirability rather than genuine false memories
- Ethical concerns about deliberately implanting false memories
Additional research findings
Individual Differences in Susceptibility
Bekerian and Bowers (1983) showed participants slides of events leading to a car crash and found that memory for important details remained intact despite misleading questions. This suggests that post-event information may affect memory retrieval rather than storage.
Tomes and Katz (1997) discovered that individuals who identify strongly with others' emotions and score highly on measures of imagery vividness are more susceptible to misleading questions. This indicates that personality factors can influence the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
Evaluation of misleading information research
The extensive research into misleading information has provided valuable insights into the nature of memory and eyewitness testimony, though it also faces several important limitations.
Strengths:
- Extensive research base with consistent findings across multiple studies and researchers
- Clear practical applications for understanding problems with eyewitness testimony in legal settings
- Demonstrates the reconstructive nature of memory and challenges assumptions about memory accuracy
Critical Limitations to Consider
Weaknesses:
- Many studies use artificial laboratory conditions that may not reflect real-world traumatic events
- Participants often expect to be misled in research settings, which may not occur in genuine eyewitness situations
- Memory for important central details may be less affected than memory for peripheral information
- Ethical concerns arise from deliberately creating false memories in research participants
- The use of potentially distressing stimuli (such as car crashes) raises questions about psychological harm
Real-world implications:
- Research has highlighted the need for careful questioning techniques in police interviews
- Understanding of how advertising can create false positive memories of products
- Awareness that memory is changeable and vulnerable to post-event influences
Key Points to Remember:
- Misleading information can significantly alter eyewitness testimony through leading questions and post-event discussion
- Schemas influence how we interpret and remember events, but can lead to memory distortions
- Loftus and Palmer's research demonstrated that subtle changes in question wording (e.g., "contacted" vs "smashed") can substantially affect speed estimates and false memory creation
- False memories can be implanted through suggestion, as shown in studies involving childhood memories of being lost or meeting cartoon characters
- Individual differences in personality traits like empathy and imagery vividness can affect susceptibility to misleading information