Core studies - Loftus, E.F and Palmer, J.C (1974) Flashcards
What are schemas?
- Packages of info ab world - help us act certain way when we’re unsure
- form in mind from early age - all knowledge org. into units
Memory:
Faculty/place of encoding, storing, + retrieving info
Eye witness testimony
Account given by ppl of an event they’ve witnessed.
Leading question:
Q that suggests what answer is desired or leads to desired Ans.
Critical question:
Key Q hidden in study that RSer will use to compare results
Response bias:
When respondents complete rating scales in ways that do not accurately reflect their true responses
Post-event information:
Received + processed following an event, that has pt. of altering memory of actual events + affects EWT
Schema theory:
- States all knowledge organised into units.
- W/in these units of knowledge, or schemata, is stored info.
- proposes memory’s infl by what individual already knows, + that their use of past experience to deal w/ a new experience = a fundamental feature of way human mind works.
Misleading information:
incorrect/distorted info given to an eyewitness following an event
L+P: Aim/Hp
Test their hypothesis that lang. used in EWT can alter memory - aimed to show leading Qs could distort EWT accounts via cues provided in Q
L+P: Background Schema theory
Says that memory is influenced by what an individual knows already + by past experiences
L+P: Background - Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory
- forms basis for Loftus and Palmer’s study into (EWT)
- in absence of all info, we fill in gaps to make sense
L+P: Background - Marshall’s (1969)
found ppl had difficulty estimating speed of cars even if they knew they would be asked ab it
L+P: Background - finish sentence: study focuses on the effects of….
- ‘leading Qs’ on individual’s ability to accurately remember events.
- expectation was that any info subtly introduced after event through leading Qs would distort original memory
What type of study was it? (same for both)
- lab experiment using an independent measures design.
Experiment 1: IV
- wording of a critical question hidden in a questionnaire.
- This Q asked, “About how fast were the
cars going when they hit / smashed / collided / contacted / bumped each other?”
Experiment 1: DV
the estimated speed given by the participant.
Experiment 1: Sample
45 students /ed into 5 groups w/ 9 p’s in each group.
Experiment 1: Outline of procedure/study
- All p’s shown same 7 film clips of diff traffic accidents (originally made as part of driver safety film)
- After each clip p’s given a Qaire which asked them 1stly to describe accident + then ans a series of Qs ab accident.
- Was 1 critical Q in Qnaire: “About how fast were cars going when they hit each other?”- 1 group given this question
- other 4 groups given verbs “smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘contacted’ or ‘bumped’, instead of ‘hit’
Experiment 1: for each verb give mean speed estimate (mph) - Results
a)Smashed
b)Collided
c)Bumped
d)Hit
e)Contacted
a) 40.5
b) 39.3
c) 38.1
d) 34.0
e) 31.8
Experiment 2: IV
- Wording on Q in a Qnaire:
- 1 group asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
- 2nd group asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
- 3rd group was not asked about speed.
Experiment 2: DV
- whether ans to Q(ab any broken glass seen) was, “Yes/No.”
Experiment 2: Sample
150 students /ed into 3 groups w/ 50 p’s in each group
Experiment 2: Outline of procedure/study
- All ps shown 1-min film (contained 4s multiple car crash)
- then given Qnaire - asked them to describe accident + set of Qs ab incident.
Was a critical Q ab speed:
- G1 asked: “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
- G2 asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
- G3 didn’t have a Q about vehicular speed.
- 1wk later, all p’s, w/out seeing film again, completed another Qnaire ab accident which contained further critical Q, “Did you see any broken glass – Yes/No?” There had been no broken glass in original film.
Experiment 1 - conlusions:
- Form of Q can significantly affect an eyewitness’s answer to it.
- Could be because of:
Response bias: uncertain ps use verb to bias their response - Change in memory of accident: verb makes witness see a more or less severe accident.
Experimet 2: Results - Response to broken glass question
Response Smashed Hit Control
Yes 16 7 6
No 34 43 44
- More p’s in ‘smashed’ condition than either ‘hit’ or control grps reported seeing broken glass.
- Majority of p’s in each group correctly recalled that they’d not seen any broken glass.
- Leading Qs do effect memory recall.
- In this case changing verb in Q to smashed gave higher estimation of speed by ps.
Controls of both experiments:
- Same films shown
- Qs all identical except critical Q - embedded in other Qs
- order of films randomised
Experiment 2 Conclusion:
- Confirmation that form of Q can significantly affect an eyewitness’s memory.
- This could be because:
- Memory consists of 2 pieces of info
- that gained @ moment of event
- that gained after the event
- Eventually both become 1 ‘memory’
severity of verb ‘smashed’ distorts the memory of event
Research Method: strength
P- Lab experiment, high control over EVs. E.g. every1 viewed car accident from same position
Ex: Allows us to establish cause + effect (IV had affected the DV), and increase internal validity.
Evid: Precise timings of the 7 car crashes films, presentation of the question order, inclusion of fillers.
Research Method: weakness
P: A weakness of lab experiment = has low ecological validity.
Ex: weakness = behaviour displayed in study doesn’t reflect behaviour shown IRL settings.
Evid: Car crashes will create more emotion if seen IRL and would have more motivation to recall speed more accurately than a vid of car crash as was shown in L&P’s study.
Data - Qualitative: Strength
P: = easy to analyse.
Ex: Comparisons can be made between results of each condition of I.V. to establish which has most sig. effect on D.V.
Evid:
- Exp 1: mean estimate of speed of vehicle (smashed 40.5mph and contacted 31.8mph mean speed estimate)
- Exp 2: presence of broken glass (Smashed= 16 said yes and in Control = 6) Can see which verb had biggest impact/how much broken glass quickly
Data - Qualitative: weakness
P: One weakness of this type of data is that it lacks detail.
Ex: This is a weakness as it simplifies complex human behaviour making it hard to establish why behaviour occurs.
Evid: P’s didn’t have the chance to say what they remembered about their experience of the car crash or why they estimated the speed that they did
*However, they did technically collect qualitative data even though they didn’t use it so in a multiple-choice question you MUST select both
Ethics: strengths
P: Minimal ethical issues
Ex: P’s had right to withdraw, were protected from harm + were debriefed.
Evid: RSers showed films of staged car crashes that had been filmed for H&S training so this should not have upset students
Ethics: weaknesses
P: Did not gain informed consent
Ex: didn’t tell them the aims
Evid: P’s were not fully aware of aims – but they couldn’t be as this would have caused demand characteristics
Validity: strengths
P: High internal validity
Ex: highly controlled with an IV and DV
Evid: High control throughout exp – car crash clips, length of clips, questions asked etc. meant that L&P could be sure that they were measuring what they intended to measure
Validity: weaknesses
P: Low external validity – in particular ecological validity
Ex: not applicable to real life
Evid: The car crashes were watched in artificial environm. = lack realism – it is highly unlikely that any1 would watch a car crash like that IRL - p’s may also have worked out aim especially in experiment 2 so there could be demand characteristics
Reliability: strengths
P: Internal reliability is increased as a standardised procedure is used.
Ex: This is because each participant is measured in the same way/given the same instructions/same task. Therefore, reducing how differences may affect the D.V.
Evid: All participant watched the same 7 film clips
- All participants were asked the same questions apart from the critical question
Sampling bias: weakness
P: The Sample is bias as all the participants used were from a certain group and of a similar age.
E: Therefore the findings cannot be generalise to other age groups.
E: Students are younger so are less likely to be drivers so their ability at estimating speeds may be worse than the general population.
Ethnocentrism: weakness
P: Only studied American students
Ex: based on only one culture – individualistic
Evid: The interpretation of the verbs may be different in other cultures.
E.g. Brit. culture we may think verb ‘hit’ = quite powerful verb + this may = higher mean speed estimate whereas in American culture it was 2nd slowest speed estimate.
- Means it’s difficult to generalise these findings to other countries because of differences in the meanings + use of language.
Answe format to follow for key area questions:
- Principle/Assumption
- Aim
- Findings
- Link
Key area question: model answer -
- Principle/Assumption
- Aim
- Findings
- Link
- Assumption: The cognitive area looks at mental processes as key to understanding human behaviour. The mind can be seen as an information processor it’s important to consider the input, processing and output of information.
- Aim: Loftus and Palmer wanted to see the effect leading questions had on the memory of an event. Specifically if changing a word within a question could have an effect on the answer given – in regard to speed estimates or reporting of broken glass.
- Findings: Participants who received the verb ‘smashed’ in the critical speed estimate question gave a higher mean average speed (40.5mph) than participants that received the verb ‘contacted’ in the same question (31.8 mph).
4.Link: This showed that data input after an incident is witnessed can interfere with the processing and output, what the witness reports.
Answer format to Key Theme question: Memory -
- define
- Aims
- findings(or conclusion)/procedure
- link
Key theme question - model answer:
- define
- Aims
- findings/procedure
- link
- Def: ability to remember something from the past
- Aim: Loftus and Palmer wanted to see the effect leading questions had on the memory of an event. Specifically if changing a word within a question could have an effect on the answer given – in regard to speed estimates or reporting of broken glass.
- findings-Participants who received the verb ‘smashed’ in the critical speed estimate question gave a higher mean average speed (40.5mph) than participants that received the verb ‘contacted’ in the same question (31.8 mph).
procedure- Loftus and Palmer asked people to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different forms of questions after they had observed a car accident.
- This shows that memory of an incident can be affected by the information received after the event- i.e. the wording of questions. This therefore links to the key theme of memory as it demonstrates how unreliable it can be.
