loftus and palmer

Question 1

what was the aim of loftus and palmers study

Answer 1

to investigate the effect of leading questions on the estimate of speed.

Question 2

define leading question

Answer 2

one that suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads them to the desired answer

Question 3

what was the aim of experiment one

Answer 3

to see if the speed estimates were influenced by the verbs in the questions asked

Question 4

what was the aim of experiment two

Answer 4

to see if leading questions bias a persons response or actually alter the memory stored

Question 5

what was the methodology for experiment 1 and 2

Answer 5

-lab experiment
-independent groups design
-sample: experiment 1- 45 students. experiment 2- 150 students

Question 6

what were the procedures for experiment one

Answer 6

-45 american university students were split into 5 groups, with 9 participants in each one.
-all groups were shown the same 7 short video clips of car accidents.
-all participants filled in a short questionnaire that included a few filler questions and the critical question.

Question 7

what was the critical question in experiment one

Answer 7

‘about how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other’

Question 8

what were the 5 verbs in the critical question

Answer 8

hit, smashed, collided, bumped and contacted

Question 9

what were the findings of experiment one

Answer 9

-smashed: 40.8
-collided: 39.3
-bumped: 38.1
-hit: 34.0
-contacted: 31.8

when the verb ‘smashed’ was used, participants estimated that the cars were travelling much faster than when the verb ‘contacted’ was used

Question 10

what were the conclusions of experiment 1

Answer 10

Loftus and Palmer gave two explanations:
response bias- the different speed estimates occurred because the critical word (e.g. smashed or hit) influenced/biases the participant’s response
memory is altered- the results could be due to the critical word changing the participants memory so they actually recall the accident differently.

Question 11

why did L and P conduct the second experiment

Answer 11

to see whether the response bias or memory being altered is the more likely explanation

Question 12

what were the procedures for experiment 2

Answer 12

150 students were split into 3 groups of 50(all american uni students).
they were shown a short film that showed a multi-car vehicle asked and then asked questions about it.
group 1 and 2 were asked the critical question with either the word smashed or hit. group 3 was not asked about the speed.
one week later, all participants returned and were asked further questions about the accident and the critical question.

Question 13

what was the critical question in experiment 2

Answer 13

‘did you see any broken glass?’

Question 14

what were the findings of experiment 2

Answer 14

smashed: yes- 16 no- 34
hit: yes- 7 no- 43
control: yes- 6 no-44

results showed that the participants in the smashed condition were more than twice as likely to report seeing broken glass than those in the hit or control condition

Question 15

what did the findings of experiment 2 show

Answer 15

that the verb used in the original question influenced whether the participants thought they had seen broken glass

Question 16

what were the conclusions of experiment 2

Answer 16

• the effect of leading questions is not due to response bias but is due to memory being altered, p’s say they saw broken glass when they didn’t so it’s altered memory.
• leading questions can actually alter a persons memory of an event
• leading questions cause memory to become reconstructed

Question 17

what is a strength of the methodology

Answer 17

they used independent groups design, which reduces the chance of demand characteristics as the participants are less likely to guess the aim.

Question 18

what was two ethical issues of the study

Answer 18

deception- participants were deceived during the study. for example, participants were asked deliberately leading questions in order to test their memory.
consent- participants did not give fully informed consent. the participants were not fully aware of the aims of the research

Question 19

what are two social implications for the study

Answer 19

benefits for society- has led to new developments in questioning techniques used by the police. the police are now more aware of the effect of the questions that they ask.
benefits for society- unreliable eyewitness testimony is costly economically and to society. retrials and compensation means that governments have to spend a lot of money as a result of unreliable eyewitnesses. if people are wrongly convicted, the actual criminal is still in society and may commit more crimes.

Question 20

what is a weakness of the methodology

Answer 20

sample size- the sample is only students. they are, therefore, likely to share many characteristics.

Question 21

what is a strength of the methodology

Answer 21

reliable research- participants all watched the same videos, were asked the same questions and overall, the procedure was very standardised. this means that all participants had a consistent experience.

Question 22

what is the weakness of the procedures

Answer 22

lack of ecological validity- participants watched staged video clips of accidents rather than real accidents. this may have changed the participants reaction to the stimuli. would they respond differently if they witnessed a real accident?

Question 23

what is the strength of the procedures?

Answer 23

good control of extraneous variables-
the order of the seven clips were changed for the participants. so some participants may have watched video 1 first, whereas others would have seen it last. this should prevent the order having an impact on the results.