Describe and evaluate an investigation into reconstructive memory. A local newspaper reports that witnesses to a bicycle collision gave different accounts a...

(a) A leading question contains information or wording that suggests an answer [1]. The word “smashed” implies greater force than “contacted” [1]. It can alter a witness's estimate or later account of the event [1]. The wording may become incorporated into the reconstructed memory rather than merely changing the response [1]. (b) A schema is an organised mental framework based on previous experience [1]. A witness may have a “serious collision” schema involving speed, injury, or broken equipment [1]. The word “smashed” may activate this schema, causing recall of details consistent with it even if they were not observed [1]. (c) Any six evaluative points: controlled experiments can standardise the event shown to each group [1]; they can manipulate only question wording, allowing cause and effect conclusions [1]; quantitative recall measures allow clear comparison between groups [1]; staged clips or reports may lack the emotion and consequences of a real collision [1]; participants may guess the aim and alter answers because they know they are in a study [1]; findings may therefore have limited ecological validity for genuine eyewitness memory [1]. (d) Any six evaluative points: evidence suggests reporters' language can affect people's recalled accounts [1]; neutral language could reduce contamination of witnesses' memories [1]; changing practice may therefore support more accurate public reporting [1]; one study alone may use a limited sample or artificial event [1]; effects may vary with delay, stress, age, and prior knowledge [1]; the editor should use this evidence alongside further research and clear interviewing guidance rather than treating it as conclusive [1]. (e) Use open questions such as “What do you remember happening?” [1]; avoid assumptions or emotionally loaded terms [1]; allow the person to give a free account before specific questions [1]; record the first account accurately [1]; avoid repeatedly asking the same question, which can alter responses [1]; separate witnesses so they do not influence each other's memory [1].