Lofter And Palmer

Question 1

What is the background for the study?

Answer 1

Schema theory - mental framework individes organise, process and store info about enviro
Suggests that existing memory enable us repeat typical behaviour

Bartlett 1932
Reconstructive memory - inaccurate and incomplete
Add things based previous experiences ( make sense)

Qualitative
L and P used quantitive, more reliable
Belief EWT unreliable influenced factors

Question 2

What was the aims for both experiments?

Answer 2

Experiment 1 - to investigate the effect of leading question have on accuracy of memory reconstruction

Experiment 2 - look at smashed condition and if they more likely to recall seeing broken glass in filmed accident (1 week later)

Question 3

What were the conclusions for both experiments?

Answer 3

Experiment 1 - individuals poor at estimating speed regardless of situation find themselves in
They were systematically and significantly influenced by wording of leading question
Explains = distorted memory by influence verbs
Bias - demand characteristics cannot decide

Experiment 2 - leading question asked subsequent to event = reconstructive memory
Verb affected both speed and broken glass - influence ppt responses
Complex occurrence - retain two types info on event. If different = memory distortion
Misleading post event info can have distort effect in individual memory

Question 4

What was L+ P statement of reconstructive hypotheses?
(Conclusion experiment 2 )

Answer 4

Overtime Info from 2 sources becomes integrated so can’t tell apart
All we have is 1 memory

Question 5

How does study link to the key theme

Answer 5

Empirical evidence
-shows effect of info received after event on memory
- experimental demo on how leading question effect EWT + reconstruction

Question 6

How does study link to cognitive area?

Answer 6

• memory reconstructive in nature
• info introduced after as leading question effect EWT of event

Question 7

Why does the study lack ecological validity? (Evaluation)

Answer 7

Controlled in lab - can’t be generalised

Crash happens spontaneously

Lack realism - act different stress
Asked to estimate speed of car crash using video clip

Question 8

What are the problems with validity? (Evaluation)

Answer 8

Knew it was study = demand characteristic effect outcome
Meaning it was not a valid demonstration on how leading question effect memory

Question 9

What was the practical application?
(Evaluation)

Answer 9

Help authority understand how to question eye witnesses to important events eg accident

Police control leading questions in court

Question 10

One strength of the cognitive area is that it favours scientific method,

Explain why this is a strength and support this with evidence from appropriate case study
3 marks

Answer 10

Examples of 3 answers

Quantitive data collected (1) allows comparison to be made between individuals or groups (1)
Eg lofter and Palmer - speed estimates given by ppt in 5 groups could be compared to see influence of different verbs (name them) on ppt memory. (1)

Allows cause and effect relationship to be established (1) so one can establish if an individual factor affects behaviour (1)
Eg for example Lofter and palmer were able to establish different speed estimates were caused by different verbs used in critical question (1)

It allows replicability (1) which can increase reliability if consistent results occur (1) ass example Grant or Lofter