When we recover and reconstruct memories, distortions can creep in without explicit external influence and these can become pieces of disinformation. When misinformation is accepted and incorporated into a person's memories, it increases as a function of the delay between the witnessed event and exposure to the misinformation, presumably because the memory of the original event becomes weaker over time (Loftus et al. 1978) . According to Wayne Weiten (2010), the definition of the misinformation effect is that it occurs when our recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate due to post-event information. The first exposure of the misinformation effect can date back to the year 1975, where Elizabeth Loftus, in her seminal work on the topic of memory malleability, unwittingly opened up this area of ​​study that has aroused the interest of psychologists for over 20 years. One of Loftus's first experiments on the malleability of memory was conducted together with his colleague John Palmer (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). This experiment laid the foundation for investigating the extent to which memories of events can be altered by subsequent exposure to misinformation about those events. After watching a videotape of a car collision, participants were asked to answer a questionnaire. Loftus and Palmer found that phrasing a suggestive question could influence the likelihood that people would report seeing things that didn't happen. Specifically, those who experienced the question suggesting that the cars in the film “crashed” into each other were more likely to falsely remember seeing broken glass (Law et al., 2010). This suggests that the material from the previous question can convey information about the answer to...... middle of paper ...... control group question: How fast was the red car going when it contacted the white car? The dependent variable would be the total number of “Yes” or “No” responses to the next question: “Did you see any broken glass?” which will be asked later in the questionnaire (there was no broken glass). [The one-tailed test will be used to analyze the data collected in this experiment. This is because we not only predicted that there would be differences between the two groups in two different suggestive question conditions, but we also specified in which direction the differences will exist.] – I'm confused whether this part is necessary. Experimental Hypothesis: Using the word “crashed” in the critical question will make participants more likely to remember seeing broken glass and answering “Yes” than using the word “contacted".