Through five studies, Eakin et al. found that exposure to misleading post-event information significantly impaired participants' ability to recall accurate information. They used modified opposition tests and found that participants who received misleading information were more likely to recall the misinformation than accurate details, even with warnings. Loftus confirmed these findings, noting some groups are more susceptible to misinformation effects. Rivardo et al. also found misinformation effects occurred whether the inaccurate information was received individually or collaboratively. Valentine and Maras demonstrated that cross-examination techniques like leading questions can cause witnesses to change their answers and testimony.

1. Literature Review
In an article written by Eakin et al. in 2003 five studies were
conducted to test the theory of the misinformation effect. They
hypothesized that exposure to misleading information can
significantly hamper one’s ability to report accurate
information. They used modified opposition tests to test their
participant’s memory. The participants were randomly assigned
to the different experimental conditions and tested in small
groups. “Different materials were developed for each of the
experimental phases including the event slides, the postevent
narrative, and the MOT” (Eakin et al., 2003). These experiments
helped test how misleading information received postevent
affects people’s memory. The tests were intended to separate
retrieval-blocking effects. Retrieval blocking revolves around
cue incrementing. Through their studies they found that people
who had been exposed to misleading information were more
likely to recall the misled information than accurate
information. They found that this is true even when participants
are given extensive warnings that the information they received
may be misleading. They also determined in their study that
receiving the warning immediately after encoding the
information reduces the recall rate of misleading information.
Through the studies they helped to prove that their hypothesis
was true, that exposure to misleading information can hamper
one’s ability to recall accurate information. These studies
however do not study how suppression of memories my come
into play. It also does not depict how long after one experiences
an event may retrieval blocking pose a problem. This opens up
the possibility that maybe we block information for a certain
period of time and/or present misled information, then the
accurate information may come to light at a later date.
Loftus may be considered one of the first explorers of the
misinformation effect. In 2005 she wrote an article summing up
her studies on this event. According to Loftus, 2005 “the

2. misinformation effect has been observed in a variety of human
and nonhuman species. And some groups of individuals are
more susceptible than others.” She depicted that in certain
conditions such as having a large amount of time between the
event and questioning, may allow for a greater misinformation
effect. Also with time she presents the facts that memory fades.
With these two issues it Loftus presents the idea that one my
rethink the event and place the misled information in due to
weak memory of the event.
Like the Eakin et al. article Loftus also presented the position
of offering a warning. She also concluded that offering a
warning that misinformation may be presented helped to curb
the effect but giving the warning after the information was
received had little effect on the results. This helps contribute to
the idea that after the misinformation has already been
processed there is little one can do to reduce the recall effects.
Loftus also adds in her article that age plays a large role in the
misinformation effect. She presents that younger children and
elderly adults are more susceptible. She presents two studies
which back up her statements. She also presents a study in
which empathy, absorption, and self-monitoring personality
traits are more susceptible to the misinformation effect.
In Rivardo et al.’s studies were conducted to test whether
co-witness discussion can lead to misinformation effects and if
collaborative recall can reduce susceptibility to misinformation.
They tested participants after viewing a video clip and then by
an email questionnaire one week later. They tested 164 college
students using a video clip of a car accident and subsequent car-
pedestrian accident. Participants were randomly assigned to
perform alone or collaborate with another participant and to
receive either the accurate or an inaccurate narrative. “Two
thirds of the participants who completed the initial video
questionnaire individually were later randomly assigned to be
part of a collaborative pair for the purposes of data analysis”
(Rivardo et al., 2013). In their results they determined
participants were more likely to report misinformation if they

3. had been exposed to the inaccurate narrative. They concluded
“individuals (47%) and collaborative pairs (67%) who read the
inaccurate narrative reported at least one piece of
misinformation” (Rivardo et al., 2013). They found that
collaborative recall does not reduce misinformation. They also
determined that misinformation was still presented at the week
follow up but it could not be clearly determined if it was due to
misinformation or normal memory decay. Rivardo et al.’s
studies still prove that introducing one to misinformation
whether individually or collaboratively will still present a
misinformation effect.
In their article Valentine and Maras explain how cross
examination contributes to the misinformation effect. Like
Loftus mentioned in her studies they focus on questioning and
suggestibility. They throw in the idea that implementing leading
questions can cause one to present false information. The article
depicts several different strategies such as not allowing
witnesses to explain answers, wording questions in a way that
forces a wanted answer, or throwing a barrage of questions at
once. As Valentine and Maras admitted in their article there is
not a lot of substantial research that studies the effects of cross-
examination. They conducted an experiment to test how using
these leading questions and different word plays affects ones
memories. Like the other experiments they had “twenty-two
student witnesses watched a video of a staged theft, either in
pairs, or individually. Paired witnesses discussed the video with
their cowitnesses but did not know they had seen slightly
different versions” (Valentine & Maras, 2011).
The researchers had their participants complete a free recall
questionnaire about the clip. After approximately 4 weeks all
participants were ross-examined by a trainee barrister. When
placed on the stand and questioned about the event the
researchers were able to get 73 percent of the participants to
change their answers using cross examination techniques such
as leading questions. Witnesses in both conditions made many
changes to their previous reports by altering both initially

4. correct and incorrect answers. This is relevant because it shows
us that leading questions can cause a change in answers. This
makes eyewitness testimony malleable and less reliable. They
also concluded that a more harsh cross examination had a
greater effect on the results. This study and ones like it have led
to boundaries in the courtroom to prevent leading questions
from prosecutors and attorneys.
Zaragoza, Belli & Payment explored how suggestive forensic
interview practices are a major cause of inaccuracies in
eyewitness testimony. They proposed the finding that exposure
to misleading postevent information can lead eyewitnesses to
report items and events they never actually saw. They too
concluded that the wording of questions could elicit different
answer. They determined that using key words such as bumped
instead of hit can cause one to choose different answers. Their
studies also concluded that “misinformation was more likely to
influence later testimony when the false information appeared
as a presupposition, rather than the direct focus of the question”
(Zaragoaza, Belli & Payment, 2006). In their article they also
presented the confabulate effect or making false memories. This
is stronger than receiving misinformation it is placing false
thoughts into someone’s mind. They explain these false
thoughts can be pushed upon someone so as they have no way to
not admit them. These techniques are used in interviews in
many circumstances to elicit false confessions. Studies have
shown that coerced confessions increase the conviction rate
even when participants recognize they are coerced. This is true
when the confession is stricken from the record, and even when
jurors claim it had no influence on their verdict. In their article
they outline a study completed by Kassin & Kiechel in 1996 in
which demonstrated that false incriminating evidence can lead
people to believe—and even remember—that they committed a
crime they did not commit. Zaragoaza, Belli & Payment’s
article demonstrated many studies on memory and the
misinformation effect as well as coercion. Their conclusions
extend studies of misinformation phenomena by showing that

5. people can be misled about their own actions, not just events
they have observed. “Moreover, like the forced-confabulation
studies, these studies show that coercing witnesses to say things
against their will can seriously distort their memories over the
long term” (Zaragoaza, Belli & Payment), 2006).
In 2002 110 people, 11 of whom had been on death row, were
released from prison due to being exonerated by new DNA
evidence. These people were convicted largely based on
eyewitness testimony. The previous articles help us to
understand more of what the misinformation effect is, in an
article by the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, 2014
depicts 46 cases in which the effects of misinformation had an
effect in the courtroom and in people’s lives. Bloodsworth, Kirk
(convicted 1984, exonerated 1993) was convicted of rape and
murder and sentenced to death solely on the eyewitness
testimony and leading questions in his interview. He was
identified from a sketch that was made from the recollection of
five eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses were mistaken and DNA
evidence excluded Bloodworth as a suspect in 1992. He became
the first person to be exonerated from death row and received a
pardon from the governor of Maryland.
Eddie Joe Lloyd in 1984 was convicted of killing a 16 year-old
girl. Lloyd who was mentally ill wrote to police with
suggestions on how to solve crimes and they brought him in.
After being fed details of the crime in several interviews with
police they convinced him that by confessing he would “smoke
out” the real murder. They in turn got him to sign a confession
and record a statement. He was sentenced to life in prison due
to Michigan not having the death penalty. After serving 17
years in prison he was exonerated when DNA testing was done
in his case. Michigan now has a law that interviews would be
videotaped in offenses that carry a life sentence.
While there is still much study needed in the area of the
misinformation effect it is clear that it exists. Through the many
studies conducted and presented throughout the years we can
see that if presented with misled information one is likely to

6. repeat it instead of the accurate information. There is still much
to discover in terms of how we store and retrieve memory which
makes understanding the misinformation effect more difficult.
Loftus examined how different groups of people may be
affected by this phenomenon more than others. Through the
studies of Valentine and Maras we can see that misleading
information can have drastic effects and all the studies show it
can come in many forms. Zaragoza, Belli, & Payment
demonstrated in their article that the misinformation effect does
exist and also presented a more sinister effect of confabulation.
All of these articles helped to provide studies and results that
indicate that under many different trials and circumstances that
the exposure to misinformation can have an effect on
eyewitness memory and testimony.