COGNITIVE Evidence - Loftus Flashcards
What is eyewitness testimony (EWT)?
The use of eyewitnesses to give evidence in court.
What is the main problem with EWT?
It is not always accurate and can lead to wrongful convictions.
What does The Innocence Project say about EWT?
Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the USA.
How can leading questions affect EWT?
They can alter the witness’s memory or influence their response.
What is retroactive interference?
New information interferes with previous learning/memories.
What did Filmore (1971) suggest about verbs like “smashed” and “hit”?
They imply different speeds and consequences.
What was the aim of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
To see if wording of questions influenced speed estimates and if memory was altered.
How many participants were in Experiment 1 of Loftus and Palmer?
45 student participants.
What method was used in Experiment 1?
Laboratory experiment using questionnaires.
What was changed in Experiment 1 to test responses?
The verb used in the critical question about car speed.
How many participants were in Experiment 2?
150 student participants.
What was the design of Experiment 2?
3 groups of 50 participants; lab-based with interviews.
What was the key procedure in Experiment 1?
Participants watched 7 traffic accident videos and answered questions, including a critical one with varied verbs.
What verbs were used in the critical question in Experiment 1?
Hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted.
What was tested in Experiment 2?
Whether participants falsely recalled broken glass based on the verb used.
What were the three groups in Experiment 2?
Group 1: “Hit”, Group 2: “Smashed”, Group 3: No question about speed.
What happened one week after Experiment 2?
Participants were asked if they saw broken glass (there was none).
What were the conclusions of Experiment 1?
Eyewitnesses are poor at estimating speed; leading questions affect responses and possibly alter memory.
What were the conclusions of Experiment 2?
Higher speed estimates increased the chance of falsely remembering broken glass.
How reliable was Loftus and Palmer’s experiment?
High reliability due to controlled and standardized procedures.
What factor reduced ecological validity in the study?
Participants watched video clips, not real-life crashes.
What participant factor may have biased results?
Use of US college students—not representative.
What did Buckhout (1980) find about real-life EWT?
Only 14% correctly identified a mugger—worse than chance.
What did Yuille and Cutshall (1986) find?
Real eyewitnesses were not misled by leading questions and gave consistent accounts.
