Cognitive Approach - Classic Research: Loftus And Palmer (1974) Flashcards
How many experiments did Loftus and Palmer conduct
2
Where was the location of research and experimental design
Same for first experiment and second
- lab
- independent groups design
Outline the 1st experiment method
- 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
What was the sampling method for both experiments
Opportunity
How many participants were used in the first one
- 45
- 9 students in each condition
Explain the method for the 2nd experiment
- 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
How many students were used in the 2nd experiment
150 (50 participants in each group)
What did Loftus and Palmer believe about memory
Two types
- information gained at the time of the event
- information gained after the event (subsequent information)
Why was a 2nd experiment conducted
- in experiment one, she’s not sure if its: response bias or altered memory
——> experiment 2: confirms it was altered memory
In the study: how did they control the information gained at the time of the event
- did it in the lab (highly controlled environment)
- got this information from the film
In the study: How did they influence the information gained after the event
Through the wording of the Q
—> leading Q
What was the job of the leading Q
Change the information gained after the event
What were the results of experiment 1 for the different words
- 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”
What did the results from experiment 1 suggest
- 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
What type of data was collected in experiment 1
Quantitative (+some qualitative from the account of events Q)
Explain the impact of mental schemas from the verb ‘smashed’ on memory
- The schema associated with the different words influenced the different estimates
- e.g. schema for smashed suggests higher speeds than contacted
What were the 2 alternate explanations of the results in experiment 1
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
What were the results in experiment 2
Smashed had the highest number of being thinking they saw glass
What type of data did Loftus and Palmer collect for experiment 2
Quantitative
Explain the impact of the leading Q ‘didi you see any broken glass’ on memory in experiment 2
- 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
Which one of Loftus and Palmer’s alternative explanation of experiment 1 did experiment 2 help support, explain why
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
What was Loftus’ conclusion from the study
- 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
What is the supporting evidence to Loftus and Palmers study
- Loftus and Pickrell (1995) ‘Lost in the Mall’
- Loftus and Zanni (1975) ‘Broken headlight’
What is the contradictory evidence to Loftus and Palmers study
- Loftus (1979) ‘Red wallet’
- Yuille and Cutshall (1986) ‘Real life robbery’
How did the supporting evidence of: Loftus and Pickrell ‘Lost in the Mall’, support Loftus and Palmer’s study
- 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
How did the supporting evidence of: Loftus and Zanni (1975) ‘Broken headlight’, support Loftus and Palmer’s study
‘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
How did the contradicting evidence of: Loftus (1979) ‘Red wallet’, contradict Loftus and Palmer’s study
- 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
How did the contradicting evidence of: Yuille and Cutshall (1986) ‘Real life robbery’, contradict Loftus and Palmer’s study
- 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
what are the 4 key points to evaluate for when you are asked to evaluate the methods + procedures
- ecological validity
- sample
- group design
- where it was set
evaluate the ecological validity of the methods + procedures
:)
- 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
evaluate the sample for the methodology + procedures
- 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)
evaluate the use of design for the methodology + procedures
- 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
evaluate where the experiment was set for the methodology + procedures
- 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)
what are the 3 main ethical issues
- lack of valid (informed) consent
- Psychological harm
- deception
describe the ethical issue of lack of valid (informed) consent
- 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
describe the ethical issue of deception
- the researchers can justify it in terms of the importance of this research
- it had a profound effect on our understanding of inaccurate EWT
describe the ethical issue of psychological harm
- 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
