The study investigated how post-event information (details acquired after an event) affects memory.

The response and post-event information were verbal (about broken glass).

Critics argued that this was a limitation since visual and verbal information might be stored separately. They wondered if the leading question interfered only with the verbal storage, not the visual one.

Real-life example: Imagine watching a car crash (visual info) and then hearing someone say it was a blue car when you thought it was red (verbal info). Would the spoken color overwrite your visual memory? This is what critics doubted.

Eyewitness testimony often involves recognition (identifying a previously seen stimulus) rather than recall (remembering in the absence of a stimulus).

Real-life post-event info might include misleading information. For instance, during police interrogations, witnesses may be provided with inaccurate or suggestive information.

Real-life example: Let's say you witnessed a robbery. The police ask if you recognized the criminal from a line-up (recognition) versus asking you to describe them without any prompts (recall). Now, what if the police subtly hint at one person in the line-up being guilty?