Cognitive: Loftus and Palmer on Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards
core study
key theme for loftus and palmer
memory
context: schema theory
memory is influenced by what an individual already knows, and that they use their past experiences to deal with a new one
context: how is knowledge stored in memories
as a set of schemas
context: what are schemas
simplified, generalised mental representations of everything an individual understands that helps them make predictions about the world
context: what are leading questions
certain questions or statements phrased in a way that leads a person to give a particular answer
context: how do leading questions affect eye witness testimony
they are more “suggestive” which can change the witness’s answer depending on what’s asked
(ie. they can suggest to the witness what answer is desired or it can lead them to that answer)
context: why was estimation of speed tested
research shows estimating speed of vehicles is very inaccurate, which suggests that the answers might be easy to influence through leading questions
aim of 1st experiment
investigate accuracy of memory the effect of leading questions on what people remember
aim of 2nd experiment
see if leading question changed a persons subsequent memory of the event they had witnessed
1st experiment method: design and research method
laboratory experiment,
independent measures,
snapshot
1st experiment: IV
the wording of a critical question hidden in a questionnaire
1st experiment: DV
estimated speed in mph
1st experiment sample size
45 American students
divided into 5 groups with 9 in each
1st experiment sample type
self-selected through advertisement at uni
1st experiment procedure: 4 steps
- All ptcpts shown same 7 film clips of different staged traffic accidents
- After each clip ptcpts given a questionnaire which asked them first to describe the accident and then answer series of qs about accident.
- There was one critical question in the questionnaire: “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
- One grp given this question while the other 4 groups given the verbs “smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘contacted’ or ‘bumped’, instead of ‘hit’.
1st experiment results: general conclusions
- mean speed estimates faster for verb “smashed” than “contacted”
- ptcpts couldn’t accurately estimate speed as the range of film accident speeds were 20-40 mph, but mean estimates were all between 36-40 mph
1st experiment results: smashed
40.8
1st experiment estimates: collided
39.3
1st experiment estimates: bumped
38.1
1st experiment estimates: hit
34.0
1st experiment estimates: contacted
31.8
2nd experiment method: design and research method
laboratory
independent measure
longitudinal
2nd experiment: DV
whether ptcpts said they saw broken glass or not
2nd experiment sample size
150 students
divided into 3 groups with 50 in each
2nd experiment procedure: 4 steps
- All ptcpts shown 1 minute film which contained a 4-second multiple car crash.
2.They were then given a questionnaire which asked them to describe accident and answer set of questions about the incident.
3.There was a critical question about speed:
– One group asked, “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
– Another group was asked, “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
– The third group did not have a question. - 1 week later, all ptcpts, without seeing the film again, completed another questionnaire about the accident which contained another critical question, “Did you see any broken glass – Yes/No?” There had been no broken glass in the original film.
1st experiment results: general conclusions
- More ptcpts in the ‘smashed’ condition than either the ‘hit’ or control groups reported seeing broken glass.
2.The majority of participants in each group correctly recalled that they had not seen any broken glass.
