Loftus And Palmer

Question 1

Loftus and Palmer

Experiment 1 method/sampleA01

Answer 1

Sample: 45 university students in groups of various sizes
Method:
-7 films shown of traffic accident (from education driver films= evergreen safety council and Seattle police department)
-Films ranged between 5-30 seconds
-After got a questionnaire asking them to ‘give an account of the accident you have just seen’, then answered series of specific questions about the accident
-9 subjects in each group had a verb= ‘hit’, ‘smashed, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’, ‘contacted’
-different ordering of films about how fast the cars were going when they ___ were presented to each group

Question 2

Loftus and Palmer

Experiment 2- method/sample A01

Answer 2

Sample= 150 university students in groups of various sizes
Method=
-Film showing multiple car accident followed with a questionnaire; film was 1min, accident was 4 seconds
-Participants were asked to the questionnaire
1- Describe the accident in your own words
2- Series of questions about accident; ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit/ smashed into each other’
-50 were asked 1, 50 were asked 2, 50 were asked about speed
-1 week lasted asked if seen any broken glass= yes/no
-Was no broken glass

Question 3

Loftus and Palmer

Experiment 1- Result A01

Answer 3

Verb:                 Mean speed estimate:
Smashed-       40.5
Hit-                    34.0
Collided-         39.3
Bumped-         38.1
Contacted-     31.8 

Analysis of variance- Significant quasi fratia F’(5,55)=
4.65,P<0.05
People not very good at judging how fast vehicles were actually travelling

4/7 films= staged crashes
Staged speed: Mean speed estimate:
20mph- 37.7mph
30mph- 36.2mph
40mph- 39.7mph
40mph- 36.1mph

Question 4

Loftus and Palmer

Experiment 1- Conclusions A01

Answer 4

• The form of question markedly and systematically affected witness’s answers
• The actual speed controlled little variance in subject reporting compare to the phrasing of the question which had considerable variance
• Interpretation A: A result of response bias factors eg participants unsure if it was 30-40mph, the verb ‘smashed’ swayed their decision, biasing results
• Interpretation B: Question form caused change in subjects memory recall of accident. ‘Smashed’= accident remembered as more severe

Question 5

Loftus and Palmer

Evaluation A03

Answer 5

Strength-
The study followed a highly standardised procedure making it highly reliable: participants had the same experience of watching the car crash films and answering the questionnaire relating to this. This reduces chance of interference from extraneous factors as all participants underwent the same process, making the study easily replicable to compare for consistency in results.

Question 6

Loftus and Palmer

Evaluation A03

Answer 6

Weakness-
On the other hand as a lab experiment it is limited in ecological validity due to the artificial lab setting of the university. The prestigious and unnatural setting may influence the behaviour of the participants in their estimation of car speed, feeling as if they had to give a particular response due to the professional environment. Therefore, suggesting their responses to car speed estimates weren’t a genuine representation of how they would be influenced by leading questions in real life. Questioning the validity of the conclusion

Question 7

Loftus and Palmer

Evaluation A03

Answer 7

Strength-
The findings of a significant difference in speed estimates based on verb choice; smashed causing estimate of 40.5 mph and contacted 31.8mph signifies the impact of leading questions on EWT leading to the development of the cognitive interview approach. This approach involves asking open questions, rather than leading ones to avoid distorting the witnesses account. This is applied to society by training police with these interview techniques to improve the accuracy of EWT leading to accurate convictions

Question 8

Loftus and Palmer

Evaluation A03

Answer 8

Weakness-
The study can be criticised due to the small sample size in experiment 1; only using 50 students and in both experiments for only using university students as this makes the sample ethnocentric. Therefore, suggesting the findings on leading question may not be reflective of the wider population, with the limited generalisability meaning the impact of leading questions on EWT cannot be applied to those who are not students, or from that university.

Question 9

Loftus and Palmer

Experiment 2- Results A01

Answer 9

Did you see any broken glass?
Response: 1)smashed 2)Hit. 3)Control
Yes. 16. 7. 6
No. 34. 43. 44