Classic evidence- loftus and palmer

Question 1

What is our classical evidence?

Answer 1

Loftus and Palmer 1974- Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory

Question 2

What did our classic evidence aim to investigate?

Answer 2

The effect of leading questions on the estimate of speed

Question 3

What are leading questions?

Answer 3

One that, by form or content, suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads them to a desired answer

Question 4

Why did L&P want to investigate this?

Answer 4

Because they wanted to see if words like ‘smashed, collieded or hit’ would affect results or try to influence results up for debate on how fast they were going as its difficult

Question 5

Why did they choose the verbs ‘hit’ or ‘smashed’?

Answer 5

They involve specifications of different movements, different specifications of the consequences or event regarded gentle for hit

Question 6

What’s an eyewitness testimony?

Answer 6

Witness of a crime asked to give evidence in court, usually concerning the identity of the perpetrator

Question 7

How does the EWT relate to the computer analogy-

Answer 7

-Witness encodes details of crime into long term memory- (can be distorted or particular due to the pace of crime and emotion associated)
-Over time, parts of the memory can be forgotten or modified (other activity’s between encoding and retrieval can interfere as well (post event discussion)
-When the witness retrieves the memory from storage, the memory of the event is reconstructed (influence the presence of absence of affecting accurately

Question 8

What is our experiment 1?

Answer 8

To see if the speed estimates were influenced by the verbs in the questions asked

Question 9

Summary of experiment 1?

Answer 9

Loftus and Palmer showed 4 students split into 3 groups of 9

Question 10

Experiment 1- Aims?

Answer 10

To see if the speed estimates were influenced by the verbs in the questions asked

Question 11

Experiments 1- Methodology, research method?

Answer 11

Lab experiments

Question 12

Experiments 1- Methodology, experimental design?

Answer 12

Independent group design

Question 13

Experiments 1- Methodology, sample?

Answer 13

45 students

Question 14

Experiments 1- Methodology, sampling method?

Answer 14

Opportunity (anyone that’s there at the time)

Question 15

Experiment 1- procedure first step?

Answer 15

-45 american university students were split into 5 groups, with 9 p’s in each one. All groups were shown the same short 7 video clips (5-30 seconds long) of car accidents with the order changes

Question 16

Experiment 1- procedure second step?

Answer 16

All participants filled in a short questionnaire, that included a few filler questions and the critical question
‘About how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other

Question 17

What were the 5 verbs?

Answer 17

Hit
Smacked
Collided
Bumped
Contacted

Question 18

Acronym to remember 5 verbs?

Answer 18

She
Can
Buy
Her
Car

Question 19

Findings- The verb vs mean estimate of speed (mph)
Smashed?

Answer 19

40.8

Question 20

Findings- The verb vs mean estimate of speed (mph) collided?

Answer 20

39.3

Question 21

Findings- The verb vs mean estimate of speed (mph) bumped?

Answer 21

38.1

Question 22

Findings- The verb vs mean estimate of speed (mph) hit?

Answer 22

34

Question 23

Findings- The verb vs mean estimate of speed (mph) contacted?

Answer 23

31.8

Question 24

Summary of findings e1?

Answer 24

They suggest its not always reliable as memory can be distort the situation due to question asked, in conclusion the leading question can affect accuracy of memory legal

Question 25

Conclusions of e1?

Answer 25

Response bias- the different speed estimates occured due to critical word (e.g. smashed, hit) influenced the p’s response
-Memory bias, the result could be due to critical word changing the p’s memory, so they actually recall incident differently i.e more or less

Question 26

Experiment 2- aims?

Answer 26

To investigate weather leading questions simply bias a person’s response or actually alter the memory that is stored

Question 27

Experiment 2- methodology research method?

Answer 27

Lab experiments

Question 28

Experiment 2- methodology experimental design?

Answer 28

independent group design

Question 29

Experiment 2- methodology, sample?

Answer 29

150 students

Question 30

Experiment 2- methodology, sampling method?

Answer 30

Opportunity

Question 31

Experiment 2- procedure step 1?

Answer 31

-150 students- split into 3 groups of 50 (American uni students)
Shown a short film that showed a multi vehicle car accident and then they were asked questions about it

Question 32

Experiment 2- procedure step 2?

Answer 32

Group 1- how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other
Group 2 asked- How fast were the cars going when they hit each other
Group 3- was not asked about the speed of vehicles

Question 33

Experiment 2- summary of procedure?

Answer 33

All were asked if they saw glass in the crash
Group 1- smashed
2- hit
3- none

Question 34

Findings experiment 2 did they see glass- smashed?

Answer 34

Yes- 16
No- 34

Question 35

Findings experiment 2 did they see glass- Hit?

Answer 35

yes- 7
no- 43

Question 36

Findings experiment 2 did they see glass- control?

Answer 36

Yes- 6
No- 44

Question 37

Summary of findings experiment 2?

Answer 37

Participants in the smashed conditions were more likely to report seeing broken glass in the hit then the control condition
-31% reported seeing glass- smash
-14% reported seeing glass- hit

Question 38

Experiment 2- conclusion?

Answer 38

-Memory altercation, the effect of leading questions is not due to responder’s bias but is due to memory being altered- P’s say they saw broken glass when they didn’t
-Leading questions may alter people’s memory of an event, By using smashed vs hit,the severity of the verb altered the perception of the severity of the crash- leading them to recall seeing glass is smashed condition when there wasn’t any
-Leading question can lead to memory to become reconstructed, The p’s created an original perception of the event witness, the post event information (leading q) is then integrated into this perception over time, leading to a reconstructed memory of the actual event