How ACCURATE is Eyewitness Testimony?| Leading Questions & Post Event Discussion

Summary

This video explores the impact of misleading information on eyewitness testimony, highlighting how factors like leading questions and post-event discussion can alter memory accuracy. It discusses key studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others, demonstrating how even subtle changes in language or shared conversations between witnesses can influence recall. The video also introduces the cognitive interview method, developed to improve eyewitness testimony accuracy, and raises concerns about research limitations, such as artificial settings and sample biases. Ultimately, it emphasizes the real-world importance of understanding these psychological influences on the justice system.

Takeaways

• 😀 Eyewitness testimony can be influenced by misleading information, such as leading questions and post-event discussions.
• 😀 Leading questions can distort the accuracy of eyewitness recollections, as they encourage specific responses.
• 😀 Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer's research showed that wording of questions (e.g., 'smashed' vs. 'bumped') affects people's speed estimates after watching a traffic accident.
• 😀 Loftus and Palmer's study revealed that participants who heard the word 'smashed' estimated higher speeds than those who heard 'bumped'.
• 😀 In a follow-up study, Loftus and Palmer found that leading questions about a crash could influence people's memories, such as making them believe they saw broken glass when there was none.
• 😀 The cognitive interview technique, developed from research into misleading information, helps avoid leading questions by encouraging open-ended recall from witnesses.
• 😀 Research by Geiselman and colleagues found that the cognitive interview leads to more accurate eyewitness testimony compared to standard interviews.
• 😀 Post-event discussion between witnesses can alter their memories, as shown in Fiona Gabbert's 2003 study where participants unknowingly incorporated others' false memories into their own recall.
• 😀 In Gabbert's study, 71% of co-witnesses reported inaccurate details after discussing the event with someone else, highlighting how conversation can distort memory.
• 😀 Research on misleading information and eyewitness testimony is valuable for law enforcement and has practical applications for police and lawyers, improving accuracy in criminal investigations.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video script?

The video script focuses on the impact of misleading information on eyewitness testimony, exploring how factors like leading questions and post-event discussions can distort memory.

Who conducted significant research on eyewitness testimony and misleading information?

The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus conducted significant research on eyewitness testimony, particularly on how misleading information, such as leading questions and post-event discussions, can influence memory.

What did Loftus and Palmer's 1974 study reveal about leading questions?

Loftus and Palmer's 1974 study revealed that the way a question is phrased can alter a person's memory of an event, such as using words like 'smashed' leading to higher estimates of vehicle speed compared to words like 'bumped.'

What is the cognitive interview, and how does it relate to Loftus and Palmer's findings?

The cognitive interview is a technique used by police to avoid leading questions, allowing eyewitnesses to recall information more accurately. It was developed based on research like that of Loftus and Palmer, which highlighted how leading questions can distort memories.

What is post-event discussion, and how can it affect eyewitness testimony?

Post-event discussion occurs when witnesses discuss an event after it has happened. It can lead to the incorporation of incorrect information from others, potentially altering the original memory of the event.

What did Fiona Gabbert's 2003 study demonstrate about post-event discussion?

Fiona Gabbert's 2003 study demonstrated that post-event discussion can significantly alter memory, as participants who discussed the event with another witness were more likely to report incorrect details, such as seeing a crime that they hadn't actually observed.

How does the use of misleading information in interviews impact the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?

Misleading information, whether through leading questions or post-event discussion, can significantly impair the accuracy of eyewitness testimony by distorting the way witnesses remember key details of a crime.

What is the ecological validity issue in studies on eyewitness testimony?

Ecological validity refers to how well research findings can be generalized to real-world situations. Studies on eyewitness testimony, such as those by Loftus and Palmer, lack ecological validity because participants view videos rather than witness real events, meaning the anxiety and seriousness of a real-life crime are absent.

What criticisms are made about the sample used in Loftus and Palmer's research?

A major criticism of Loftus and Palmer's research is that their sample consisted of American university students, who may not represent the general population. This limits the generalizability of the findings, especially in a study about driving where participants may have limited experience.

How does research by Foster et al. (1994) challenge the artificiality of eyewitness testimony studies?

Foster et al. (1994) found that eyewitnesses were more accurate when they believed the video they were watching depicted a real-life robbery. This challenges the artificial nature of studies like those of Loftus and Palmer, as real-life stakes could affect eyewitness recall more than laboratory conditions.