How the Wording of Questions Can Influence Eyewitness Memory

How the Wording of Questions Can Influence Eyewitness Memory

The way questions are phrased can significantly impact the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness memory. This phenomenon has been extensively studied in cognitive psychology, demonstrating how subtle changes in wording can lead to memory distortions and false recollections.

Key Studies and Findings

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Study Overview: In their classic study, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer investigated how the wording of questions could affect participants’ memories of a car accident. Participants watched a video of a car collision and were then asked to estimate the speed of the vehicles involved. The critical manipulation involved the verb used in the question:

• “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
• “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”

Findings:

• Participants who were asked using the verb “smashed” reported higher speed estimates (40.8 mph) compared to those asked with “hit” (34.0 mph).
• A week later, participants were asked if they saw any broken glass (there was none in the video). Those who heard “smashed” were more likely to report seeing broken glass than those who heard “hit”.

Conclusion: The study demonstrated that the wording of questions could alter participants’ memories, creating false recollections of details that were not present.

Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978)

Study Overview: In another study, participants were shown a series of slides depicting a car accident involving a pedestrian. A critical slide showed a car stopping at either a stop sign or a yield sign. Participants were then asked questions about the scene, with some receiving misleading information (e.g., “Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the yield sign?” when the actual slide showed a stop sign).

Findings:

• Participants exposed to the misleading question were significantly less accurate in recalling the correct sign compared to those who received consistent information.

Conclusion: This study further supported the idea that misleading post-event information could distort eyewitness memory, leading to inaccuracies in recall.

Mechanisms of Influence

1. Misinformation Effect: Exposure to incorrect or misleading information after an event can alter an individual’s memory of the original event. This can happen through direct suggestion or subtle wording changes that imply a different interpretation of the event (Loftus, 2005).

2. Source Monitoring Errors: Individuals may struggle to distinguish between their original memories and the suggested information. This can result in them incorporating the misleading details into their recollection (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993).

3. Schema Activation: The wording of questions can activate specific schemas (mental frameworks) that influence how individuals reconstruct their memories. For example, the word “smashed” might activate a schema associated with more severe accidents, leading to exaggerated memories of speed and damage (Bartlett, 1932).

Implications

1. Eyewitness Testimony: The findings on the influence of question wording have profound implications for legal contexts. Eyewitness testimony can be highly unreliable if witnesses are exposed to leading or suggestive questioning techniques.

2. Interrogation Practices: Law enforcement officers and legal professionals must use neutral, non-suggestive language when questioning witnesses to avoid contaminating their memories.

3. Therapeutic Settings: Therapists and counselors should be cautious in how they phrase questions to clients, particularly when dealing with memories of traumatic events, to avoid inadvertently creating false memories.

Mitigation Strategies

1. Neutral Questioning: Using neutral, open-ended questions that do not imply any particular response can help preserve the accuracy of eyewitness memories. For example, asking “What did you see?” instead of “Did you see the broken glass?” (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992).

2. Training for Professionals: Training law enforcement, legal professionals, and therapists in proper questioning techniques can reduce the risk of memory contamination.

3. Cognitive Interviews: Utilizing the cognitive interview technique, which involves open-ended questions and context reinstatement, can enhance the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness recall (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992).

Further Reading

• Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
• Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361-366.
• Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
• Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3-28.
• Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Understanding how the wording of questions can influence eyewitness memory is crucial for improving the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony and ensuring that justice is served based on accurate recollections.