6.3.1 Classic- L+P (1974)

Question 1

Aims?

Answer 1

1. Investigate the accuracy of which we remember the detail of a complex event
2. Test the hypothesis: ‘Lang used in EWTs can alter memories esp leading q’s’

Question 2

Sample?

Answer 2

> Male, American students from Uni of Washington
45 total, split into 5 groups

Question 3

Type of method used?

Answer 3

> Lab
Independent measures design

Question 4

Briefly describe the procedure of the first part of this classic study.

Answer 4

• Shown 7 clips of 5-30 seconds each of a staged traffic accident (taken from the Evergreen Safety Council and Seattle Police)
• Post vid, ppts received a questionnaire asking them to give an account of the accident as if they were an EW
• Then asked the critical question of: “About how fast were the cars going when they (insert ⅕ verbs) each other?”
  > Verbs swapped based on exp condition pps were in
• The clips were counterbalanced as the order was different for each group

Question 5

What was the IV and DV of the first study?

Answer 5

IV
> Verb used in critical Q (smashed, collided, hit, bumped, contacted)
DV
> Estimated speed of car (mph)

Question 6

What were the results of Loftus and Palmer’s first study?

Answer 6

Verb
Mean est speed (mph)

Smashed
40.5
Collided
39.3
Bumped
38.1
Hit
34.0
Contacted
31.8

Question 7

Describe the conclusion of Loftus and Palmer’s first study.

Answer 7

The verb used in the critical question influenced the speed estimate
The more powerful verbs that suggested higher speeds before impact received higher estimates

Question 8

What 2 reasons did Loftus suggest could be the reason for why leading questions affect memory?

Answer 8

1. Response~bias factors- The misleading info given may’ve influenced the answer given (resp bias) but didn’t lead to a false mem of the event eg. diff speed ests occur bc critical verb influences pp response but didn’t change pps perception of what happened to the cars
2. Distortion - Critical verb changes pps perception of accident eg some critical words like ‘smashed’ led to some having memory of accident being more serious than reality,, this new perception’s stored as the pps memory of the event
   > If true, we’d expect pps to remember extra false/ untrue memories (think schema theory!) Studied in exp 2

Question 9

aims of Loftus’s 2nd experiment?

Answer 9

Aim- Investigating if leading q’s create a response bias/ distortion (alter someone’s perception of a complex event)

Question 10

sample 2nd exp?

Answer 10

> 150 students

Question 11

Method used in 2nd study?

Answer 11

> Lab

Question 12

Briefly describe the procedure of the second part of this classic study.

Answer 12

• 150 students were split into 3 equal groups
• They were shown a 1 min film of a multiple car accident that lasted 4 seconds
• At the end they were given a questionnaire asking them to describe the accident and then answer 10 questions about it that were asked in a random order
• They were asked the critical question of: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
• The verb was changed to smashed or hit, for two conditions, the third were not asked for a speed estimate
• 1 week later the ppts returned and were asked: “Did you see any broken glass?” even though there wasn’t any (tested influence of leading q on EWTs)

Question 13

What was the IV and DV of the second study?

Answer 13

IV
> Whether the car was smahed, hit or weren’t asked at all
DV
> Speed estimate & whether they answered yes/no to seeing any broken glass

Question 14

What were the quantitative results of Loftus’s second study?

Answer 14

Smash- 16 yes 34 no
Hit- 7 yes 43 no
Control- 6 yes 44 no

Question 15

Were the results of 2nd study significant?

Answer 15

Yes because those who estimated speed in smashed condition averaged 10.46 mph whereas those in hit averaged 8 mph which is significant due to t(98) and having a difference of 2 at p<0.05.

Question 16

Describe the conclusion of the second study.

Question 17

GRAVE- G

Answer 17

P- Low G
E- 1st exp was small, 45 students, 2nd exp larger at 150 students but both were all- American from Uni of Washington.
E- W, sample = ethnocentric and may be difficult to generalise to toher cultures who use diff estimations of speeds. Also students may not have driving experience, so results may not generalise to those w driving experience

Question 18

GRAVE- R

Answer 18

P-High, standardised procedures
E- . All pps watched same 7 clips of RTAs + asked same leading q’s and critical verb question, only diff was critical verb used, also data = quantitative bc DV was mean estimate speed
E- Incr inter-rater, allows study to be easily replicated for consistency of results.
Link: For EWTs, allows investigators to

Question 19

GRAVE-A

Answer 19

P-Yes
E- Demonstrated that leading q can lead to distortion + response bias due to diff critical verbs producing diff testimonies from pps, despite all watching same traffic accident video, similar to EWs witnessing same event IRL.
E- Devlin report! can be applied to police training in cog intervals, incl not using leading q’s to improve accuracy of EWTs to prevent confabulation therefore false accusations.

Question 20

GRAVE- V

Answer 20

1. P- Low eco V
   E- Clips of crash shown in lab envir
   E- W, IRL there would be other sounds, different atmosphere when recalling for EWT- many potential EVs not considered in L+P’s study
2. P- Low mundane realism
   E- Pps asked to give testimonies as if they were real-life EWs of clip + give speed estimation based off of critical verb q, well prepared
   E- W, Pps prepared to watch clips whereas IRL it’d be a shock to witness a traumatic event or crime. So during EWT the witnesses may take it more seriously as there’s actual legal consequences for their actions, whereas pps may take less seriously as they’re aware its a clip of a traffic event not seen IRL.

Question 21

GRAVE-E

Answer 21

P- Good + bad
E- Good-clips comprised of prev crashed/ staged crashes rather than pps witnessing a real crash
E- Good- S, less distressing for pps, protects them from harm