The effect of misinformation on memory recall for an eyewitness event Essay Example

witnesses varies.

Various factors impact our ability to remember what we have witnessed. Among these, the weapon focus has the most significant effect on recalling criminal events, according to Loftus et al. (1987). Witnesses and victims tend to focus on the weapon present at a crime scene, neglecting other details, which ultimately affects the accuracy of their recall. Furthermore, central information is memorized better than peripheral information by witnesses and victims.

During a crime, witnesses tend to focus on the assailant and the victims, overlooking other cues that may aid in processing the event. Additionally, eyewitness testimony is not always a precise retelling of events due to post-event information and the construction and reconstruction of memories from multiple sources. The schema effect, or mental representation of an object, scene, or event, also plays a role in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. When coupled with misinformation, such as updated eyewitness memory, it can lead to details being misremembered from criminal events.

This experiment found that the victim wore trousers, but if participants were asked about the skirt's color, they later agreed the victim wore a skirt. Additionally, individual differences impact eyewitness memory. For instance, self-preoccupied subjects are poor witnesses. This conclusion was reached by Siegel and Loftus (1978).

Furthermore, a decrease in memory performance can result from stress and anxiety. The study aimed to investigate the impact of misleading information on the memory recall of both central and peripheral events. The study had three hypotheses: firstly, the Misinformation factor suggests that memory recall is affected by misinformation. Secondly, the Focus factor proposes that central event details are remembered distinctively from peripheral details. Finally, the relationship between Misinformation and Focus

hypothesizes that misinformation impacts central and peripheral details differently.

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of misleading information on memory recall of both central and peripheral events. Participants will be presented with a video clip, followed by distractors one, questionnaires one, distractors two, and finally questionnaires two in chronological order. It is hypothesized that there will be a decrease in accurate recall of event details if misleading information affects memory as predicted. Additionally, central details are expected to be better remembered compared to peripheral ones. The study includes 20 participants from Swansea University with no psychology background; 12 males and 8 females were chosen for the study. Finally, it is anticipated that central events will be less susceptible to misinformation than peripheral events if the hypothesis regarding misleading information affecting memory differently for central and peripheral events holds true.

The study was conducted on individuals between the ages of 19 and 28, with an average age of 22.75 years, who had normal or corrected-to-normal eyesight and were first-time participants in this type of research. The participants' identities were kept anonymous from the researchers, and they each signed a consent form before participating. The study utilized slides depicting various phases of a purse-snatching crime: before, during, and after the incident.

Using Microsoft PowerPoint, Catrin Jones and Cathryn Lloyd-Davies presented each slide for 3 seconds to participants on a screen. The participants were then given two types of questionnaires. The first set of questionnaires (phase 1) included both central and peripheral questions such as "What colour is the main garage door?" and "What is all over the floor?" The second set of questionnaires (phase 2) also

included both central and peripheral questions like "Where is the motorbike logo on the assailant's clothing?" and "What colour was the closest car to the left of the screen?" Distractor tasks were included in the experiment between viewing the event and phase 1 questionnaire, and between phase 1 and phase 2 questionnaires. Microsoft PowerPoint controlled all trial presentations, which were presented via laptop.

The study incorporated a mixed design and involved a screen image that measured around 0.30m x 0.20m.

Participants were divided into two groups based on a video clip and given two sets of questionnaires. Both groups completed both levels of the within-subject factor, which had Central and Peripheral levels. The group was further classified as control or misinformation with half in each. The first questionnaire consisted of 12 questions while the second had six.

The questionnaire was split into central and peripheral sections, and participants completed distracter tasks and questionnaires based on the counterbalancing method. The dependent measure was recall accuracy, calculated as a percentage. Experimenters randomly assigned participants to two groups: a misleading group and a control group.

Concerns about participant consent have arisen from the study, which focuses on eyewitness testimony. To address this issue, participants will be informed of their right to withdraw at any time and given a briefing on the research goals. Participants must sign a consent form before starting the study to confirm their understanding of these rights. The video clip utilized in the research depicts a criminal incident that may cause discomfort or psychological distress among subjects, particularly if it evokes memories of similar events from their past. Additionally, the presence of a weapon in the footage could also

affect viewers' emotions.

The debriefing form includes details for the student counselling service in case of risks and urges participants to ask questions. Confidentiality is maintained for all data collected, and participant outcomes are not disclosed. As previously mentioned, both experimenters and participants assume equal risk during the study. The research was carried out in a private setting provided by the researchers, with only one participant present at any given time.

Before starting the experiment, the participant received a document to get acquainted with its contents and signed a form acknowledging their understanding of the procedure and right to withdraw from participation while watching the video. The participant's duties involved finishing a three-minute distractor sheet before responding to the initial set of questionnaires during phase one, followed by another three-minute distractor sheet before tackling another set of questionnaires in phase two. Ultimately, after completing this entire process, they were given the debriefing form.

The results will only register accurately if the answers are correct.