1. MEMORY
FALLIBLITY OF MEMORY

2. EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY
any firsthand account given by an individual of an event they have seen.
best known for its use by police to acquire details about a crime and even to identify a perpetrator.
often in court and juries tend to view it as a reliable source of information.

3. INACCURATE BECAUSE…
eye-witnesses reconstruct their memories and their reconstructed memories can be manipulated by leading questions that contain misleading information.
Loftus’s research makes it clear that leading questions can be used to manipulate memory reconstruction and therefore information that is reported by eye-witnesses.

4. LEADING QUESTIONS
has content or is phrased in such a way as to suggest what answer is desired or to lead to the desired answer.

5. ‘How fast was the car going when it ran the stop sign?’
Contains a presupposition — information that should or must be true in order for the question to make sense.
What is the presuppositon?
But what if there was no stop sign? You might answer the question anyway because it was a question about how fast the car was going and not a question about the presence of a stop sign or whether the car ran a stop sign.
Loftus proposes, however, that because of the way the question was worded, you might add the new false information about the stop sign to your memory of the event. Then you will be more likely to recall it as a part of your reconstructed memory when answering a question about it, such as ‘Did you see the stop sign?’, at a later time.

6. LOFTUS AND PALMER 1974
investigated the influence of question wording on memory reconstruction, particularly how information supplied after an event can distort a witness’s memory for that event.

7. FIRST EXPERIMENT 45 volunteers (students)
Shown 7 short videos of car accidents
Ranged from 5 to 30 seconds
Participants = eye-witness
Asked to write a description of the accident and answer questions (including leading questions)
Had to estimate the speed of the cars involved in each collision

8. 5 CONDITIONS Smashed Collided Bumped Hit Contacted
HOW FAST WERE THE CARS GOING WHEN THEY…
Smashed
Collided
Bumped
Hit
Contacted
For example, in condition 1, the critical question was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’
In order to control the potential influence of the order in which the videos were viewed, the videos were presented in a different order to each group of participants.

9. the wording of the question influenced the speed estimates given by the participants, with the most ‘intense’ verb (smashed) bringing about the highest speed estimates (a mean of 40.5 miles per hour) and the least ‘intense’ verb (contacted) bringing about the lowest speed estimates (a mean of 31.8 miles per hour).

11. CONCLUSION
results could be due to participants’ memories being distorted by the verbal label used to describe the intensity of the car crash.
also recognised that the results could have been influenced by an uncontrolled extraneous variable called response bias.
RESPONSE BIAS: that is, participants were uncertain about the exact speed of the cars and may therefore have adjusted their estimates to fit in with the expectations of the researcher.

12. SECOND EXPERIMENT 150 students 1 of 3 conditions
1 minute video - 4 second multiple car crash

13. SECOND EXPERIMENT Group 1
About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’
Group 2
About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’
Group 3
Not asked about speed
The results obtained showed that the mean speed estimate for the question with smashed into was miles per hour and the mean speed estimate for the question with hit was 8.00 miles per hour.

14. One week later came back and asked this question.
There was, in fact, no broken glass at the accident scene.
Although most participants accurately reported not seeing any broken glass, more participants who had been given the question with the word smashed into (16) reported seeing broken glass than did those who had been given the question with the word hit (7).

15. LOFTUS AND PALMER Source confusion Included presupposition
Formed a memory based on video
Integrated false information (smashed/hit)
One week later
Unable to tell the key info from the new sources
Source confusion
Information had been integrated to form a new distorted memory

16. SOURCE CONFUSION
arises when the true source of the memory is forgotten or when a memory is attributed to the wrong source.
In Loftus’s studies, ‘misinformation’ provided in leading questions after the event become confused with the details of the original memory.

17. Leading questions by prosecutors and barristers are disallowed in courtroom proceedings.

19. TED – Elizabeth Loftus
OegI6wvI