Loftus and Palmer Flashcards
Describe the background of the study
-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
Define ‘Schema theory’
The ability to retain information and to demonstrate this retention on information through behaviour
Define ‘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
Define ‘Leading questions’
A question which by its form of content, suggests what answer is desired
What was the aim of the study?
To investigate the effect of language on memory
What was the sample for experiment one?
15 students split into 5 groups of 9, from Washington USA
What was the DV?
The estimated speed of the car in the videos
What was the IV?
The word that changed in the critical question:
-Hit
-Collided
-Smashed
-Contacted
-Bumped
What was the critical question?
How fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?
What type of experiment was it?
Lab experiment in a controlled setting
Was was the first stage of the procedure?
Watch: students shown 7 clips from Evergreen safety council of the Seattle police department
-Between 5 and 30 seconds
-Shown in different orders
What was the second stage of the procedure?
Questions: after each clip participants were given a
questionnaire
Would give an account, then answer questions including the critical question
What was the mean speed estimate for ‘smashed’?
40.8 mph
What was the mean speed estimate for ‘hit’?
34.0 mph
What were the conclusions?
-People are not good at estimating the speed of cars
-The form of a question does change the answer given by a witness
What were the two explanations suggested for the results?
Response bias and memory change
What was the experimental design for experiment two?
Independent measures
What is the sample for experiment two?
150 students split into 3 groups of 50
What was the first part of the procedure?
Participants watched a one min clip of a multiple car crash then answered questions on it
Asks a question on speed unless control group
What was stage two procedure?
A week later participants returned to answer 10 more questions including the critical one: ‘Did you see any broken glass?’
What were the three conditions/IV?
-Hit
-Smashed
-Control
What was the DV?
The effect of being asked the question on speed
What were the numbers of participants that recalled seeing broken glass when there wasn’t any?
-Smashed: 16/50
-Hit: 7/50
-Control group: 6/50
What was the conclusion?
The form of a question does change a witnesses memory
What was the explanation of results?
-Own perception
-External information
Which ethical guidelines were followed?
Consent
Confidentiality
Right to withdraw
Which ethical guidelines were broken?
Protection from harm
Deception
What the study ethnocentric?
-Yes-only conducted in Washington, USA
-No-can be argued that memory is universal, so it doesn’t matter
Internal reliability
-Standardised-all watched the same crash and answered the same questions
-Same amount of time between questions in experiment two
External reliability study one
No, only nine participants per condition which isn’t enough to establish a consistent effect
External reliability study two
Yes, 50 participants in each condition, which is enough to establish a consistent effect despite outliers
Internal validity
-Very controlled so unlikely to have extraneous variables
-People potentially saw broken glass as demand characteristics
Population validity
No-all students at the same university and a similar age
Ecological validity
-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
