1. How reliable is your memory? PART 2
The counterargument

2. Yuille and Cutshall, 1986 Aim
To study whether leading questions would affect memory of eyewitnesses at a real crime scene.
Procedure
The crime scene was in Vancouver. A thief entered a gun shop and tied up the owner before stealing money and guns from the shop. The owner freed himself, and thinking that the thief had escaped, went outside the shop. But the thief was still there and shot him twice. Police had been called and there was gunfire - and the thief was eventually killed. As the incident took place in front of the shop, there were eyewitnesses - 21 were interviewed by the police.
The researchers chose this incident to study because there were enough witness and there was forensic evidence available to confirm the stories of the eyewitnesses.
The researchers contacted the eyewitnesses four months after the event. 13 of the eyewitnesses agreed to be interviewed as part of a study. They gave their account of the incident, and then they were asked questions. Two leading questions were used.Half the group was asked if they saw a broken headlight on the getaway car. The other half was asked if they saw a yellow panel on the car (the panel was actually blue). They were also asked to rate their stress on the day of the event on a seven point scale.
Results
It was found that eyewitnesses were actually very reliable. They recalled a large amount of accurate detail that could be confirmed by the original police reports. They also did not make errors as a result of the leading questions. 10 out of 13 of them said there was no broken headlight or yellow quarter panel, or that they hadn’t noticed those particular details.
The researchers found that the accuracy of the witnesses compared to the original policy reports was between 79% and 84%. It appears that this research contradicts the study by Loftus & Palmer (1974). It could be that the lack of emotional response to the video that was shown in their study played a key role in the influence of the leading questions.  The witnesses reported that they didn't remember feeling afraid during the incident, but they did report having an "adrenaline rush."

3. Evidence for: The Counterargument
When evaluating this piece of research:
This study is a field study and thus has very strong ecological validity.
There was archival evidence (police records of the original testimonies) to confirm the accuracy of the testimonies.
The study is not replicable and also not generalizable since it was a one-off incident. There was also no control of variables, so it is difficult to know the level of rehearsal that was used by the different eyewitnesses. It could be that those that agreed to be in the study had spent the most time thinking and reading about the case.
Because the eyewitnesses' safety was threatened, it could be that this is a case of flashbulb memory, which would mean that it cannot be compared to Loftus's original research.
The quantification of the qualitative responses form the participants is problematic and may be open to researcher bias.

4. Evidence for: The Counterargument
Another study that demonstrates that memory can be reliable was done by Bahrick et al (1975). It may very well be that different types of memory are more reliable than others. As we saw in the case studies of HM and Clive Wearing, although they had lost their declarative memories, they were still able to learn procedural memories. This clearly indicates that different memories may be located in different parts of the brain - and that they also may have different levels of reliability.
The researchers investigated our ability to remember the names and faces of our classmates. Nearly 400 participants aged 17 – 74 were tested. The participants were asked to do five tests:
A free recall test: Name as many people as you can from your graduating class. Time limit of eight minutes.
A photo recognition test: 10 cards, each with five photos. They were asked with of the five photos was taken from their own yearbook. 8 second limit.  If they didn't know, they were told to guess.
A name recognition test:  10 lists of names, each with only one name from the graduating class.  Participants were asked to identify the person from their class.
Matching tests: 10 cards each with five pictures.  A name was written across the top of the page.  The participants were asked to identify the correct photo to match the name.
Picture cueing test: The participants were presented with 10 portraits one by one and asked to write down the name of the person in the photo.  A 15 second time limit.
Results of the study showed that participants who were tested within 15 years of graduation were about 90% accurate in identifying names and faces. After 48 years they were accurate 80% for name recognition and 70% photo recognition. This shows a very high reliability of memory over a long period of time.
The participants did worse in the free recall task. After 15 years it was 60% and after 48 years it was 30% accurate.
This study is a cross-sectional study - that is, not a longitudinal study. Therefore, we cannot account for participant variability. However, because of the large sample size, we are able to establish a trend in the data that demonstrates that facial recognition has high reliability.

5. Riniolo et al. 2003
GO from Study Guide & overview posted in Moodle

6. Answer the following questions:
1. What do psychologists mean when they say that a memory is reconstructed?
2. What did Bartlett's War of Ghosts study teach us about memory?
3.  Why is Loftus & Palmer's study criticized for lacking ecological validity?
4. What are two ways in which research on memory distortion has been applied?
5. What is meant by the term "narrative interview?"  Why are they preferred in criminal investigations?
6. What is Tulving's Encoding Specificity Hypothesis? How has this been applied to eyewitness testimony?
7. Why is it important to know that Bahrick's Yearbook study was cross-sectional in nature?

7. Exam tips
Remember, this lesson prepares you for questions related to the reliability of memory.  In order to do well on an exam question, you should be able to do the following:
Define the terms reconstructive memory and schema.
Describe three of the studies discussed.  Two that demonstrate how memory is not reliable; one that shows that it is reliable.
Evaluate the studies that you have chosen.
Discuss problems with studying the reliability of memory.
Discuss the implications of the research - which may include how the findings have been applied.