Misleading information AO3
- Created by: Jordan64
- Created on: 30-01-18 20:19
View mindmap
- Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading information AO3
- Laboratory Studies
- Lack ecological validity and mundane realism
- The results gained in such settings may lack external validity and wider generalisation
- Allow researchers to control extraneous confounding variables
- Researchers can clearly see the link that post event discussion and leading questions have on recall
- Easier to verify the results for reliability through replication and to establish cause and effect relationships, which would be difficult to do in real-life settings
- Repeat studies have concluded similar findings leading psychologists to conclude that leading questions and misinformation can affect recall
- The use of students may have been a confounding variable in itself rather than leading questions
- This is because they are not representative of the range of ages in the normal population, meaning the sample lacks population validity
- Warren et al found that younger children were more susceptible to memory contamination than adults
- This study may lack internal validity as it may be more of a measure on how leading questions affect one particular age group rather than the wider population
- Warren et al found that younger children were more susceptible to memory contamination than adults
- This is because they are not representative of the range of ages in the normal population, meaning the sample lacks population validity
- The use of questionnaires can easily be misunderstood by participants or misinterpreted without clarification, and people's responses may be understood by the researchers.
- Lack ecological validity and mundane realism
- Real life studies
- Real life studies outside the lab setting (Yuille and Cutshall) found witnesses to real events tended to have accurate recall even months after witnessing events with misleading questions having little effect
- Suggests the findings by Loftus into leading question may be limited only to laboratory settings due to the highly motivated participants displaying demand characteristics that may not be indicative of real witnesses
- Foster et al found supporting evidence for this in one study where participants, who thought they were watching a real life robbery and believed their responses would have an impact on an upcoming trial were more accurate in their recal
- Although ethical issues are raised due to the participants being decieved into thinking what they were watching was real, the findings suggest leading questions may have some impact in lab setting but in real life other factors may mitigate for this and override their affects
- Foster et al found supporting evidence for this in one study where participants, who thought they were watching a real life robbery and believed their responses would have an impact on an upcoming trial were more accurate in their recal
- Suggests the findings by Loftus into leading question may be limited only to laboratory settings due to the highly motivated participants displaying demand characteristics that may not be indicative of real witnesses
- Real life studies outside the lab setting (Yuille and Cutshall) found witnesses to real events tended to have accurate recall even months after witnessing events with misleading questions having little effect
- Laboratory Studies
Comments
No comments have yet been made