Loftus and Palmer

Question 1

Describe the background of the study

Answer 1

-Loftus was interested in the fragility of memory and how easily we forget things
-Heavily interested in the validity of eye witness testimony, believed stress could influence the way they had remembered the event and how the interview was carried out

Question 2

Define ‘Schema theory’

Answer 2

The ability to retain information and to demonstrate this retention on information through behaviour

Question 3

Define ‘Reconstructive memory’

Answer 3

The way in which our biases and prejudices can unconsciously lead us to have memories of events that are distortions of what actually happened

Question 4

Define ‘Leading questions’

Answer 4

A question which by its form of content, suggests what answer is desired

Question 5

What was the aim of the study?

Answer 5

To investigate the effect of language on memory

Question 6

What was the sample for experiment one?

Answer 6

15 students split into 5 groups of 9, from Washington USA

Question 7

What was the DV?

Answer 7

The estimated speed of the car in the videos

Question 8

What was the IV?

Answer 8

The word that changed in the critical question:
-Hit
-Collided
-Smashed
-Contacted
-Bumped

Question 9

What was the critical question?

Answer 9

How fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?

Question 10

What type of experiment was it?

Answer 10

Lab experiment in a controlled setting

Question 11

Was was the first stage of the procedure?

Answer 11

Watch: students shown 7 clips from Evergreen safety council of the Seattle police department
-Between 5 and 30 seconds
-Shown in different orders

Question 12

What was the second stage of the procedure?

Answer 12

Questions: after each clip participants were given a
questionnaire
Would give an account, then answer questions including the critical question

Question 13

What was the mean speed estimate for ‘smashed’?

Answer 13

40.8 mph

Question 14

What was the mean speed estimate for ‘hit’?

Answer 14

34.0 mph

Question 15

What were the conclusions?

Answer 15

-People are not good at estimating the speed of cars
-The form of a question does change the answer given by a witness

Question 16

What were the two explanations suggested for the results?

Answer 16

Response bias and memory change

Question 17

What was the experimental design for experiment two?

Answer 17

Independent measures

Question 18

What is the sample for experiment two?

Answer 18

150 students split into 3 groups of 50

Question 19

What was the first part of the procedure?

Answer 19

Participants watched a one min clip of a multiple car crash then answered questions on it
Asks a question on speed unless control group

Question 20

What was stage two procedure?

Answer 20

A week later participants returned to answer 10 more questions including the critical one: ‘Did you see any broken glass?’

Question 21

What were the three conditions/IV?

Answer 21

-Hit
-Smashed
-Control

Question 22

What was the DV?

Answer 22

The effect of being asked the question on speed

Question 23

What were the numbers of participants that recalled seeing broken glass when there wasn’t any?

Answer 23

-Smashed: 16/50
-Hit: 7/50
-Control group: 6/50

Question 24

What was the conclusion?

Answer 24

The form of a question does change a witnesses memory

Question 25

What was the explanation of results?

Answer 25

-Own perception
-External information

Question 26

Which ethical guidelines were followed?

Answer 26

Consent
Confidentiality
Right to withdraw

Question 27

Which ethical guidelines were broken?

Answer 27

Protection from harm
Deception

Question 28

What the study ethnocentric?

Answer 28

-Yes-only conducted in Washington, USA
-No-can be argued that memory is universal, so it doesn’t matter

Question 29

Internal reliability

Answer 29

-Standardised-all watched the same crash and answered the same questions
-Same amount of time between questions in experiment two

Question 30

External reliability study one

Answer 30

No, only nine participants per condition which isn’t enough to establish a consistent effect

Question 31

External reliability study two

Answer 31

Yes, 50 participants in each condition, which is enough to establish a consistent effect despite outliers

Question 32

Internal validity

Answer 32

-Very controlled so unlikely to have extraneous variables
-People potentially saw broken glass as demand characteristics

Question 33

Population validity

Answer 33

No-all students at the same university and a similar age

Question 34

Ecological validity

Answer 34

-Staged car accidents may nor replicate real life responses
-If you were a witness to a crash you’d probably have to answer similar questions