Further Research and Evaluation

Loftus and Palmer conducted additional research to support their findings on the role of misleading questions in reducing eyewitness testimony accuracy. In a follow-up study, they showed 150 students a video of a car crash and divided them into three groups: one asked about "smashed" cars, another about "hit" cars, and a control group not asked any questions.

Example: A week later, when asked if they saw broken glass (which was not present in the video), participants in the "smashed" condition were twice as likely to report false memories of broken glass.

This further demonstrates how misleading information and eyewitness memory accuracy are intertwined, as post-event questioning can create false memories.

However, the research has been criticized for lacking mundane realism and ecological validity.

Vocabulary: Ecological validity refers to the extent to which research findings can be applied to real-world situations.

Foster et al. (1994) found that participants who believed they were watching a real-life robbery and thought their responses would influence a trial were more accurate in identifying the robber.

Highlight: The artificial laboratory setting of Loftus' study may limit its applicability to real-life eyewitness testimony situations.

This criticism suggests that the findings from laboratory research settings may not fully represent real-life eyewitness behavior, potentially weakening the study's support for the role of misleading information in affecting eyewitness testimony accuracy.

Quote: "It can be argued that the findings from artificial laboratory research settings such as Loftus' study may not be applicable to real-life EWT behaviour."

Despite these limitations, the Loftus and Palmer 1975 eyewitness testimony study remains a seminal work in understanding the effects of leading questions on eyewitness recall and the impact of misleading information and eyewitness memory accuracy.