How to Answer a 16 Mark Question (AQA A Level Psychology) : Revision Note

Here is an example of a 16-mark essay question:

Q. Outline and evaluate research (theories and/or studies) into the effects of misleading information on eyewitness testimony.

[16 marks]

Model answer:

Leading questions’ impact on eyewitness testimony’s (EWT) accuracy was examined by Loftus & Palmer (1974). After showing film clips of car accidents to American students, they questioned them about the incident. Participants were asked to describe how fast the cars were going when they hit each other. The verb “hit” implies the speed at which the car was travelling, so this was a leading question. Each of the five participant groups received a distinct verb in the crucial question, such as contacted, bumped, collided, or smashed.

For every participant group, the mean estimated speed was calculated. For the verb “contacted,” the mean estimated speed was 31.8 mph, and for the verb “smashed,” the mean was 40.5 mph. The findings demonstrate that leading questions have an impact on EWT accuracy.

Post-event discussion is another way that false information can impact EWT. In one study (Gabbert et al., 2003), participants watched a video of the same crime, had a discussion about what they saw, and then took a recall test individually. 71% of participants misrecalled details of the incident that they had heard about during the discussion but had not seen in the video. This shows how conversations among co-witnesses about a crime can taint their EWTs, as they may incorporate (mis)information from other witnesses into their own recollections.

A limitation of Loftus & Palmer’s study is that they watched film clips of car accidents. Since the clips do not have the same level of stress as an actual accident, this is very different from actually witnessing an accident. This is a limitation because research using these artificial tasks lacks ecological validity because they may not provide much information about how leading questions influence EWT in actual criminal cases. Given that the consequences of what is remembered in real life can be very significant, EWT may be more reliable than many studies indicate.

Individual differences are a further limitation of research on false information on EWT. Research indicates that younger people provide more accurate eyewitness reports than older people do. Individuals in the 18–25 and 35–45 age groups were found to be more accurate than those in the 55–78 age group, according to one study (Anastasi & Rhodes, 2006). Because Loftus and Palmer used university students, when age may have an impact on EWT, their results cannot easily be generalised to other age groups; therefore, their findings lack population validity.

On the other hand, one of the study's strengths is that it has significant real-world implications, as inaccurate EWT can have grave consequences. As mistaken eyewitness identification is the biggest single factor leading to the conviction of innocent people, Loftus (1975) believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers should be careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses (Wells & Olson, 2003). This demonstrates how Loftus & Palmer’s work can be applied in real life to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Word count: 486

Level 4 response: 13-16 marks

Marking commentary:

This response is in the top band (Level 4) because there is detailed knowledge and understanding of how misleading information can affect the accuracy of EWT. Effective use of key terms is evident in the description, which is selective as it includes just one research study on leading questions and one on post-event discussion.

The essay follows a coherent structure and is focused on the question rather than discussing all factors affecting EWT in general. The evaluation is effective as the strengths and limitations are clearly introduced, elaborated thoroughly and they clearly explain why they support or critique research into the effects of misleading information on eyewitness testimony.

Step by step structure:

• Paragraph 1: One research study on misleading information is explained in detail and includes key terms (AO1)

• Paragraph 2: Accurate detail of the findings of Loftus & Palmer's study with a link to the question (AO1)

• Paragraph 3: Another research study on misleading information described in detail, with a link to the question (AO1)

• Paragraph 4: An evaluation point is introduced and elaborated using a contextualised (rather than generic) research methods criticism. This is then linked back to the question (AO3)

• Paragraph 5: A second evaluation point is introduced, explained further and then linked back to the question (AO3)

• Paragraph 6: A counterargument is introduced, explained in detail and linked back to the question (AO3)