Loftus research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony

1. Loftus research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony • One of the leading researchers into eyewitness testimony (EWT) is Elizabeth Loftus. • Loftus supports Bartlett’s idea of memory as reconstructive. • Loftus claims that the nature of questionscan influence witnesses memory. • She calls this the “MISINFORMATION EFFECT” • She suggests that Leading Questions – ‘a question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer’ influences recall • This is misleading post (after) event information facilitate schema processing which may influence the accuracy of recall • “Memory is suggestive, subjective and malleable” (Loftus) Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP8kJ5A5xU8

2. Title of study: “Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction : An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory” Loftus and Palmer (1974a) Laboratory experiment 1 into the effect of leading questions on reconstructive memory Aim:To investigate the role of leading questions in recall Procedure: • An independent measures design was used • 45 students shown video clips of car accidents Then asked questions: • Critical question was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they HITeach other?’ • ‘Hit’ replaced with either ‘smashed’, ‘collided’,‘bumped’ or ‘contacted’. IV: ………… ……………. Findings: DV: ………… ……………. What are the implications of these findings? Conclusions: The use of different verbs activates different schemas in memory, so that the participant hearing the word ‘smashed’; may actually imagine the accident as more severe than the participant hearing the word ‘contacted’.

3. Loftus and Palmer (1974b) Laboratory experiment 2 to see whether misleading post-event information can lead to the creation of false memories Aim: To see whether misleading post event information can lead to the creation of false memories Procedure: • An independent measures design was used • 150 students all shown a video clip of car accident • Split into groups of 50 • 1st group asked “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” • 2nd group asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” • 3rd group was the control group – they were not asked to estimate the speed of the accident Findings: • One week later they were asked a critical question, “Did you see any broken glass?” (there was no broken glass in the video clip) • The 2nd group who were initially asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”. On average gave higher speed estimates and that they recall seeing broken glass. IV: ………… ……………. DV: ………… ……………. Still the highest – although most people said no to the question

4. video# Overall Findings & Conclusions • Different words had an effect on the estimation of speed as well as the perception of the consequences of the accident. • Loftus and Palmer (1974) explained that ‘smashed’ provides participants with verbal information that activates schemas for a severe accident. • The higher rates of participants seeing broken glass is connected to this, the participant is more likely to think that there was broken glass involved when they were asked the leading question containing the word ‘smashed’ • Loftus’s research also indicates that it is possible to create a false memory using misleading post-event information(i.e. – the questions asked after the event, causes memory to be easily distorted leading to inaccurate recall) • This is also known as confabulation –confusion of true memories with false memories. Evaluation of the experiment: StrengthsLimitations

5. An evaluation of Loftus research into EWT Strengths • Loftus and her colleagues have made an important contribution to our understanding of the fallibility of EWT. It seems clear from the research that memory for event can be fundamentally altered in light of misleading post-event information. This has had important implications for the way in which the police question witnesses, and also in the courtroom. • Loftus used experimental methodology, so that cause & effect can be observed, making the study easily replicable. Loftus & Palmer (1974b) also used a control condition in their study: the 3rdgroup were not asked about accident but asked about whether they saw broken glass or not, for reliability of results. The use of experiment 2 enabled Loftus to make sure that the results of the experiment 1 were not merely due to demand characteristics. Limitations • There are problems with the use of closed questions, which means people have to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – research suggests people recall information better when asked questions in a logical order – such as the ‘Cognitive Interview’ developed by Geiselman et al. (1985) to be used by the police to get detailed accounts from eyewitnesses. – when this technique is used EWT can be much more accurate. • All the research participants were from the US, so the sample is culturally biased. • The research also raises the question of how well people are able to estimate speed, and this may have influenced the results. • Her research has also been criticized for its low E.V. & artificiality, in real life, events that might have to be recalled later in a court of law, often take place unexpectedly and in an atmosphere of tension. It is difficult to recreate such conditions in the laboratory for practical and ethical reasons, and it is quite possible that eyewitnesses remember real events differently from staged events.

6. Yullie and Cutshall (1986) criticism of Loftus’s research… • Yullie and Cutshall (1986) have criticized Loftus’s research for a lack of ecological validity. • Performing research on memory in the laboratory does not reflect how and when people remember in real life, they argue. • They used Loftus’s technique in interviewing people who had witnesses a realrobbery and found that misleading questions did not seem to distort peoples memory. Instead, they found that the memory for details in this real life situation was quite amazing. • This was seen in particular in witnesses who had been close to the event. In fact, it seems that the wording of the question had no effect on recall, and those who were most distressed by the situation had the most accurate memories. • Furthermore, there is also research into ‘flashbulb memories’ which are particularly vivid, detailed and long lasting memories of the circumstances surrounding an event, such as 9/11.