Classic Study (Loftus & Palmer 1974)

Question 1

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

APFC

Answer 1

A - To investigate how information given to a witness after an event will change their recollection of that event

P - 45 students watched short video clip of a car crash, split in 5 groups
All ppt.s asked how fast the cars were going when they ___ each other
Different adjectives used to fill in the blank - ‘contacted, hit, collided, smashed, bumped’

F - When the word ‘smashed’ was used the speed recalled was much higher than softer words such as ‘contacted’ e.g. 40.8mph vs 31.8mph

C - Verb used changed the ppts. recollection of the event. This means that prosecutors could take advantage of leading questions to change EWT for their own benefit

Question 2

Loftus & Palmer (1974) Experiment 2

APFC

Answer 2

A - Expansion on experiment 1

P - 150 psychology students, split into 3 groups, watch car crash vid
1 group has verb ‘hit’, one group ‘smashed’ and one has none
Asked a week later wether they saw any smashed glass in the vid (there was none)

F - Response Yes - 16 for ‘smashed’ condition, 7 for ‘hit’, 6 for control

C - Verb used changed the recollection of the event once again, EWT is unreliable

Question 3

Loftus & Palmer (1974) GRAVE

Answer 3

G - Only 45 ppts. in experiment 1. Ppts. were all students so of similar age and also may have limited driving experience

R - Standardised lab experiment (same vid for same time), asked glass question 1 week after experiment in Experiment 2.

A - Can be applied to Eye Witness Testimony and highlighting its unreliability. EWT can now no longer be used alone for a conviction

V - Lacks ecological validity as they only saw a video of a car rather than being there at the time, less emotional strain

E - Good ethics as no distress caused, ppts debriefed afterwards