Cognitive - Loftus and Palmer Flashcards
What is the background of this study?
Loftus was interested in the fragility of memory how easily we can forget information - also heavily interested in the validity of eye witness testimony. She believed stress could influence the memory of the event they had witnessed as well as the way the interview was carried out
What are leading questions?
Questions that lead respondents to a certain answer
What is eyewitness testimony?
The account given by people who have seen a certain event
What was the aim?
To investigate the effect of language on memory
What was the research method?
Lab experiment
What was the experimental design used in study 1?
Independent measures
What was the sample used in study 1?
45 students split into 5 conditions (9 per conditions)
What were the IVs in study 1?
The question: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they ________ each other’
What were the DVs in study 1?
Mean speed estimate in mph
What were the 5 verbs?
Contacted, bumped, hit, collided, and smashed
What was the procedure in study 1?
Sample was shown clips from Evergreen Safety Council fo the Seattle Police Department. The clips lasted between 5 and 30 seconds. 4/7 clips contained staged crashes of which the speed was shown. Clips were shown in a different order. After each clip they were given a questionnaire of 2 parts (give an account of the accident, then they would answer questions on the accident)
How was data collected in study 1?
Self-report
What were the controls in study 1?
Clips shown, questionnaires given, critical question
What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 20 mph?
37.7 mph
What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 30 mph?
36.2 mph
What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 40 mph?
39.7 mph
What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 50 mph?
36.1 mph
What was the mean speed estimate for the verb smashed?
40.8 mph
What was the mean speed estimate for the verb collided?
39.3 mph
What was the mean speed estimate for the verb bumped?
38.1 mph
What was the mean speed estimate for the verb hit?
34.0 mph
What was the mean speed estimate for the verb contacted?
31.8 mph
What was the type of data collected in study 1?
Quantitative
What were the conclusions of study 1?
People aren’t good at estimating speed, and the form of the question given does change a witness’ answer
What was the explanation of results for study 1?
- Response bias - the tendency to give an answer based upon the situation
- Language used changes the memory of the event
(This is what they aimed to loo at in the second experiment)
What was the experimental design for experiment 2?
Independent measures - different people in each group
What was the sample of experiment 2?
150 students in 2 conditions - 50 per group
What was the IV in experiment 2?
The leading question asked of participants
What was the DV in experiment 2?
Accuracy of memory “Did you see any broken glass” - all of the videos had none
What was part 1 of the procedure in experiment 2?
Participants watched clips lasting 1 minute of multiple car crashes (4 seconds), they then answered a questionnaire which was asking about the speed of the cars when they smashed or hit into each other
What was part 2 of the procedure in experiment 2?
A week later participants returned to answer ten more questions including the critical “did you see any broken glass?”
How was the data collected in experiment 2?
Self report - used a questionnaire
What were the controls in experiment 2?
Clips shown, the question asked a week later, the questionnaire, same researchers
What was the mean estimate of speed (mph) for subjects interrogated with smashed?
10.46
What was the mean estimate of speed (mph) for subjects interrogated with hit?
8
What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the smashed condition?
16
What was the number of people who said they didn’t see glass in the smashed condition?
34
What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the smashed condition?
16
What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the hit condition?
7
What was the number of people who said they didn’t see glass in the hit condition?
43
What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the control group?
6
What was the number of people who said they didn’t see glass in the control group?
44
What was the type of data collected in experiment 2?
Quantitative
What was the conclusions in experiment 2?
The question asked after an event can affect the speed a witness perceives as well as whether they saw broken glass
What was the explanation of results for experiment 2?
Reconstruction memory - due to 2 influences - our own perception of the original event and external information given after the event - overtime these can be merged
What ethical guideline was upheld?
Consent - students consented to taking part in the study (however they were told it was a study on memory)
What ethical guideline was broken?
Deception - they weren’t told the true aim and they were lead to believe there was broken glass
Harm - viewing crashing video could cause harm
Point for internal reliability?
Replicated procedure with heavy controls - 7 videos to ensure it wasn’t just for ONE video
Point for external reliability?
Study 1 - sample too small
Study 2 - Sample sufficient to suggest consistent effect
Point for internal validity?
Very controlled tests and the critical question was hidden amongst filler questions
Point for external (ecological) validity?
Eye witness interviewers are usual (exp 2) but not questionnaires - not really crashes and only video clips
Point for external (population) validity?
Students perhaps better at memory? - large sample overall
Is this study applicable only to the culture in which the reattach was carrier out, or could the findings apply elsewhere?
The study was only carried out on American Students - however it is argued that cognitive processes are universal (the same for everyone)
