Cognitive 2: Loftus & Palmer 2

Question 0

What was the IV and DV?

Answer 0

IV: different groups asked critic question using either ‘smashed’ or ‘hit’

DV: whether tested positive or negative to seeing broken glass

Question 1

What was the aim?

Answer 1

Investigate whether the ‘smashed’ condition group would report positive for seeing broken glass in the clip of the collision in comparison with the ‘hit’ condition and a control group.

Question 2

Who were the PPs?

Answer 2

150 students divided into 3 groups, 50

in each condition (smashed, hit, none)

Question 3

What was the procedure?

Answer 3

• shown a 1 min clip of a collision
• questionnaires completed immediately after
• critical q= “how fast do you estimate the cars were going when they (smashed/hit” control group not asked
• came back a week later
• completed a different questionnaire with critical q= “did you see any broken glass? Yes or No”

Question 4

What were the results?

Answer 4

YES:
Smashed= 16/50
Hit= 7/50
Control= 6/50

NO:
Smashed= 34/50
Hit= 43/50
Control= 44/50

• PPs in ‘smashed’ gave a higher mph and answered higher to yes
• verb not only affected estimate of speed but also distorted memory
• tried to make sense of q= if gave a higher mph, probably broken glass

Question 5

What are some evaluations?

Answer 5

✔️High reliability as both exp gave same results (concurrent v)
✔️Highly replicable as questionnaires cheap and easy and standardised

✖️Low in pop v as students
✖️low Eco v= no sound, smell, taste, vibrations and not usually asked as long as 1 week after event

Question 6

What are some possible improvements?

Answer 6

• higher Eco v= subjects watch a live fake crash
• higher pop v through standardisation= wider age range, wider area and occupation and education background
• Counterbalance critical q

Question 7

What are 2 conclusions of the L&P experiment? (Both 1+2)

Answer 7

Memory influenced by 2 parts:
•internal perception of individual while watching the event
•external stimuli such as leading q’s

Question 8

What were 2 ways in which the procedure of 1 and 2 were standardised?

Answer 8

1. Candidates had exactly the same set of questions to answer after seeing the videos; exception of the target question (smashed, hit, contacted, collided, etc).
2. They all saw exactly same events from the same stance – video clips.