Cognitive Approach - Classic Research: Loftus And Palmer (1974)

Question 1

How many experiments did Loftus and Palmer conduct

Answer 1

2

Question 2

Where was the location of research and experimental design

Answer 2

Same for first experiment and second
- lab
- independent groups design

Question 3

Outline the 1st experiment method

Answer 3

• 7 films shown of a traffic accident (from longer driver’s education safety film)
• participants are given a questionnaire about the crash
• the different conditions has a different word in the one special Q, ‘about how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other’
• the words ranged from: hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted
• participants gave their answers in mph

Question 4

What was the sampling method for both experiments

Answer 4

Opportunity

Question 5

How many participants were used in the first one

Answer 5

• 45
• 9 students in each condition

Question 6

Explain the method for the 2nd experiment

Answer 6

• shown a film of a multiple car crash (film lasted less than 1 min), and these lasted less than 4 secs
• group1: ‘smashed’ Group2: ‘hit’ Group 3 weren’t asked (control group)
• 1 week later = participants return
• all groups do a questionnaire, but key Q is ‘Did you see any broken glass’
  ——> there wasn’t any in the film, but those who thought the cars went faster = expected glass to be there

Question 7

How many students were used in the 2nd experiment

Answer 7

150 (50 participants in each group)

Question 8

What did Loftus and Palmer believe about memory

Answer 8

Two types
- information gained at the time of the event
- information gained after the event (subsequent information)

Question 9

Why was a 2nd experiment conducted

Answer 9

• in experiment one, she’s not sure if its: response bias or altered memory
  ——> experiment 2: confirms it was altered memory

Question 10

In the study: how did they control the information gained at the time of the event

Answer 10

• did it in the lab (highly controlled environment)
• got this information from the film

Question 11

In the study: How did they influence the information gained after the event

Answer 11

Through the wording of the Q
—> leading Q

Question 12

What was the job of the leading Q

Answer 12

Change the information gained after the event

Question 13

What were the results of experiment 1 for the different words

Answer 13

• smashed = 40.5 mph
• collided = 39.3 mph
• bumped = 38.1 mph
• Hit = 34.0 mph
• contacted = 31.8 mph
  —> “Sam cooks breakfast Hot (and) crispy”

Question 14

What did the results from experiment 1 suggest

Answer 14

• the more intense/aggressive the verb is = the higher the speed we remember
  —> suggesting that its changing our memory
• implies that memory isn’t always accurate: it can be altered

Question 15

What type of data was collected in experiment 1

Answer 15

Quantitative (+some qualitative from the account of events Q)

Question 16

Explain the impact of mental schemas from the verb ‘smashed’ on memory

Answer 16

• The schema associated with the different words influenced the different estimates
• e.g. schema for smashed suggests higher speeds than contacted

Question 17

What were the 2 alternate explanations of the results in experiment 1

Answer 17

1) response-bias
- critical verb = influences a person’s response
- eg. If undecided between 30/40mph, if the verb was smashed = they chose the higher estimate

2) altered memory
- critical verb = changes a person’s memory
- e.g. smashed changes participants memory so that he actually ‘sees’ the accident being more severe than it was

Question 18

What were the results in experiment 2

Answer 18

Smashed had the highest number of being thinking they saw glass

Question 19

What type of data did Loftus and Palmer collect for experiment 2

Answer 19

Quantitative

Question 20

Explain the impact of the leading Q ‘didi you see any broken glass’ on memory in experiment 2

Answer 20

• Although it did lead to most people’s memory not being changed, It still did change a few
• schema for smashed is likely to be associated with glass = so changes memory of event

Question 21

Which one of Loftus and Palmer’s alternative explanation of experiment 1 did experiment 2 help support, explain why

Answer 21

2) altered memory
- critical words changes people’s memory so that their perception of the accident is affected
- findings from Ex2 show that this did happen to a few participants because of the verb smashed (they remembered glass that wasn’t there)
- hence this is evidence that it was altered memory

Question 22

What was Loftus’ conclusion from the study

Answer 22

• two kinds of information goes into one’s memory
• the first = information gained during the perception of the original event
• the second = external information supplied afterwards
• overtime = these 2 informations become integrated in such a way that we can’t recall from which source some specific detail is recalled

Question 23

What is the supporting evidence to Loftus and Palmers study

Answer 23

• Loftus and Pickrell (1995) ‘Lost in the Mall’
• Loftus and Zanni (1975) ‘Broken headlight’

Question 24

What is the contradictory evidence to Loftus and Palmers study

Answer 24

• Loftus (1979) ‘Red wallet’
• Yuille and Cutshall (1986) ‘Real life robbery’

Question 25

How did the supporting evidence of: Loftus and Pickrell ‘Lost in the Mall’, support Loftus and Palmer’s study

Answer 25

• 25% of participants believed a false event actually happened (lost in a mall when a child), even after being debriefed
  —> shows the memory was altered by post event information

Question 26

How did the supporting evidence of: Loftus and Zanni (1975) ‘Broken headlight’, support Loftus and Palmer’s study

Answer 26

‘Did you see the/a broken headlight?’ (There wasn’t one in the video of car accident)
- 7% asked about a broken headlight said yes
- 17% asked about the broken headlight said yes
—> shows how the wording of the Q (leading Q) lead to the memory being altered

Question 27

How did the contradicting evidence of: Loftus (1979) ‘Red wallet’, contradict Loftus and Palmer’s study

Answer 27

• leading questions used to try make participants think it was a different colour
• 98% still guessed it correctly (red)
  —> shows the leading Qs had no effect in altering memory

Question 28

How did the contradicting evidence of: Yuille and Cutshall (1986) ‘Real life robbery’, contradict Loftus and Palmer’s study

Answer 28

• interviewed 13 people who witnessed a real robbery
• leading Qs had no effect and their accounts were very similar to their initial witness statements
  —> therefore memory wasn’t altered by the leading Qs

Question 29

what are the 4 key points to evaluate for when you are asked to evaluate the methods + procedures

Answer 29

• ecological validity
• sample
• group design
• where it was set

Question 30

evaluate the ecological validity of the methods + procedures

Answer 30

:)
- it was a real video of a real crash

:(
- it was a video and not in real life
- there’s no consequences to how the participants answer. If it were a real life police report, perhaps their answers would be different
- you pay more attention in real life

Question 31

evaluate the sample for the methodology + procedures

Answer 31

• opportunity sampling: students
  :)
• easy to obtain
• large sample = more generalisable

:(
- biased: only certain people will volunteer and American students are not reflective of the entire population (class, age, etc)

Question 32

evaluate the use of design for the methodology + procedures

Answer 32

• independent groups design
  :)
• easy to compare
• reduces demand characteristics and removes order effects

:(
- need a larger sample then repeated measures = more time consuming to collect and analyse
–> also increases participant variables

Question 33

evaluate where the experiment was set for the methodology + procedures

Answer 33

• lab
  :)
• establish cause and effect relationship
• high validity and reliability because of the high control over extraneous variables

:(
- low ecological validity
- by being in a lab participants are constantly reminded that they’re being observed (encourages demand characteristics)

Question 34

what are the 3 main ethical issues

Answer 34

• lack of valid (informed) consent
• Psychological harm
• deception

Question 35

describe the ethical issue of lack of valid (informed) consent

Answer 35

• valid consent wasn’t gained
• if participants were aware of the aims = the leading Qs not being as effective because participants think of their answers more = not reflective of everyday EWT

Question 36

describe the ethical issue of deception

Answer 36

• the researchers can justify it in terms of the importance of this research
• it had a profound effect on our understanding of inaccurate EWT

Question 37

describe the ethical issue of psychological harm

Answer 37

• because it was a video of a crash and not real = EWT aren’t reflective of how they would’ve normally would’ve reacted
• however, exposing them to real life crashes = psychological harm (couldn’t be diffused by debriefing)
• therefore the study had to use videoclips in order to avoid this