Core study six-Loftus and Palmer (1974) Cogntive Area Flashcards
Background of Loftus and Palmer
Loftus was interested in the fragility of memory - how easily we can forget information
She was also heavily interested in the validity of eyewitness testimony. She believed stress could influence the memory of the event they had witnessed as well as the way the interview was carried out.
Schema theory
The ability to retain information and to
demonstrate this retention of information
through behaviour
RECONSTRUCTIVE MEMORY
The way in which our biases and prejudices
can unconsciously lead us to have memories of events that are distortions of what actually happened
Leading questions
A question which, by its form or content,
suggests what answer is desired
Aim of Loftus and Palmer
To investigate the effect of language on memory.
Research method
The research method was a lab experiment as the IV (verb used in the critical question) was manipulated by the researcher and the study took place in a controlled setting
Data collection
Self-report: Participants were asked questions following watching the staged car crash(es) in each experiment. In experiment 1 they were asked about speed estimates and in experiment 2 they were asked about seeing broken glass.
This method will be key within this area as we cannot obtain insight into thought processes any other way (e.g through observation).
Experiment one sample
45 participants who were students from Washington USA split into five groups of nine
Independent variable of experiment one
VERB USED IN CRITICAL QUESTION:
1. HIT
2. COLLIDED
3. SMASHED
4. CONTACTED
5. BUMPED
Dependent variable of experiment one
Estimated speed of the car in the videos
Procedure of experiment one
Watch: Students were shown 7 clips from Evergreen Safety Council of the Seattle Police Department. The staged clips lasted between 5 and 30 seconds. 4/7 clips contained staged crashes of which the speed when they crashed was known. The clips were shown in a different order for each participant.
Questions: After EACH clip they were given a questionnaire of 2 parts . Firstly they were asked to give an account of the accident Then they would answer questions on the accident.
Results of experiment one
VERB USED IN CRITICAL QUESTION
- SMASHED= 40.8
- COLLIDED =39.3
- BUMPED= 38.1
- HIT =34.0
- CONTACTED= 31.8
Conclusions of experiment one
People are not good at estimating the speed of cars.
The form of a question does change the answer given by a witness
Explanations of results for experiment one
Response bias- the word in the critical question biases participants to give a different speed estimate.
Memory change-the word in the critical question changed the memory the participant had about how fast the car was going
Experiment two sample
150 students split into 3 groups from Washington USA
Independent variable of experiment two
Each of the 3 groups was asked a different variant of the critical question (hit, smashed ,control)
Dependent variable of experiment two
Whether the participant (incorrectly) remembers seeing broken glass.
Estimated speed of the car in the videos
Producer of experiment two
Watch- Participants watched a clip lasting 1 min of a multiple car crash (the crash lasted 4 seconds of the clip). They then answered the first questionnaire which included the critical question which was changed for each group
- About what speed were the cars going when they hit each other?
- About what speed were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
- Control condition - not asked about speed
Questions- A week later participants returned to answer ten more questions including the critical “did you see any broken glass?”
What controls did Loftus & Palmer put in place for experiment 2?
Video used
Time between testing
Critical question
Results of experiment two
Smashed: 16/50 participants remembered seeing broken glass when asked the smashed question
Hit: 7/50 participants remembered seeing broken glass when asked the hit question
Control:6/50 participants remembered seeing broken glass when not asked about speed
Conclusions of experiment two
The form of a question does change the witness’ memory
Reconstructive Memory - explanation of findings
Reconstructive Memory - explanation of findings (experiment two)
- Your own perception of the event is what you think happened (based on your own memory).
- external information is content given after the event.
This can be through questioning from police, media coverage etc. Both of these are combined to create your memory of the event and it is hard to distinguish between what YOU and experienced and what you’ve been TOLD.
Reliability of both experiments
Reliability: Internal- The procedure was standardised as all participants watched the same staged car accidents, had the same questions (minus the critical question) and had the same amount of time in between testing in experiment 2.
External- 45 and 150 participants seems like a large enough sample to establish a consistent effect BUT 9 per condition in experiment 1 may not be enough.
Validity of both experiments
Internal (construct)- Very controlled so unlikely to have extraneous variables
Perhaps people said they saw broken glass as demand characteristics
Population- Sample were all students from America so lacking diversity
Ecological-Staged car accidents not real ones - hard to replicate how someone will behave in the real scenario
Ethnocentric of both experiments
Ethnocentric: The research was only carried out on American students. However, it could be argued that it doesn’t matter where the research was carried out as memory is universal.
Ethics broken
Deception- the hypothesis about leading questions was not releveled to them and distracted questions were used to further conceal the hypothesis
Ethics kept
The researcher chose to show clips of car crashes from safety films ethic did not contain gruesome image, so should not have caused phycological harm.
What area does Loftus and Palmer link to
Loftus and Palmer study falls within the cognitive area because it is investigating the cognitive process of memory. Specifically, it aimed to investigate the reconstructive nature of memory, showing that information introduced after an event in the from of leading questions would have an effect on eye witness’ memory of the event.
