Evan though the misleading question introduces new information which in added to the event, not every one actually incorporated it, only 17.3% did, the other 82.7% were unaffected. However, without this research we would not know that memory can be altered by misleading information. Loftus can be criticized on her method of testing recall, people remember things more correctly, if the questions were asked in a logical order, different techniques have been found to help lower the chances of incorrect information such as the Cognitive Interview technique. One point which lowers the credibility of Loftus’s studies is that they were are artificially created, none of them were real, also the importance of the events would have not been the same, as the participants knew that they were not effecting someone life (by sending them to jail etc). The participants were not actually there, they don’t get to feel the emotion or the atmosphere were can effect recall. However the study is supported by another Loftus and Loftus (1980) found that recall was no more accurate when the participants were offered money, however some people are more or less motivated by money.
Loftus also theorized that with the introduction of the misleading information the original information is deleted and replaced by the new false memory. However this has been questioned by other studies such as Berkian and Bowers (1983), performed a very similar experiment except that when it came the reconstructive phase asked the questions in chronological order, (where Loftus was completely random), they found that the mislead group recall almost the same correct amount of info as the control group. This showed that the original memory had not actually been lost. But unfortunately no other studies have been successful in achieving the same result, so Berkian and Bowers study (1993) might have had some mistakes or problems.
Christian and Hubinette (1993), questioned people who had actually witnessed genuine bank robberies. Some had been onlookers, while other were bank employees who were involved directly. The people who had actually been involved were able to remember more details about appearance of robbers and their behavioural characteristics. When questioned again 15 months later, the memory recall was still superior. Hence Christian and Hubinette concluded that people remember events more accurately in real time and when they are actually involved. A criticism of this is that Christian and Hubinette should have subjected the same people to the tests similar to Loftus, so they could compare how well people would recall fake mock events to real life events. However I believe there study to be good as it shows that recalling a real life event is more accurate then a mock events, so eyewitness testimony can be reliable.
In general Loftus’s research is very useful, as it shows us eyewitness testimony can not be completely dependable, however in light of the her studies limitations and other studies results (Christian and Hubinette), Eyewitness testimonies are still a very good way of establishing events.
