Loftus and Palmer Flashcards
What’s the background of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
EWT is not always accurate.
One possible reason why EWT seems to be so poor is because of the role of leading questions.
These leading questions may be used by the police when interviewing witnesses after the event.
Information received after an event can have an effect on our recollection.
What’s the definition of leading questions?
A question that either by its form or content, suggests to the witness what answer is desired, or leads him to the desired answer. - Loftus
What’s the methodology?
Two experiments.
Laboratory.
Independent groups design.
Experiment 1 = 45 student participants.
(5 groups of 9)
Experiment 2 = 150 student participants.
(3 groups of 50)
What did experiment 1 consist of?
Shown 7 film clips of different traffic accidents.
They ranged from 5 - 30 seconds.
(They were originally made as part of a driver safety film)
After each clip, the participants received a questionnaire.
They were asked to give an account of the accident they had just seen.
They were also asked a series of questions about the accident.
One question asked was:
“About how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?”
The word used in the blank space varied from group to group.
Participants estimates of speed in each group were recorded in mph.
What were the verbs used in the leading question asked in experiment 1?
Smashed.
Collided.
Bumped.
Hit.
Contacted.
What was the aim of experiment 2?
Whether leading questions simply bias a person’s response or actually alter the memory that is stored.
What did experiment 2 part 1 consist of?
Participants shown a film of a multiple car crash.
(The actual accident lasted less than 4 seconds)
Asked a set of questions. This includes the critical question about speed.
Group 1:
How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
Group 2:
How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
Group 3:
This was the control group, and its member weren’t exposed to any question.
What did experiment 2 part 2 consist of?
A week later, participants were asked to return to the psychology laboratory.
They were asked further questions about the filmed accident.
All participants were asked another critical question.
The question was:
Did you see any broken glass?
There was no broken glass in the film but presumably, those who thought the car was travelling faster might expect there to have been broken glass.
What were the findings from experiment 1?
Mean speed was calculated for each experimental group.
Smashed - 40.8
Collided - 39.3
Bumped - 38.1
Hit - 34.0
Contacted - 31.8
What were the findings from experiment 2 part 1?
Participants gave higher speed estimates in the smashed conditions,
just like the participants in experiment 1.
What were the findings from experiment 2 part 2?
Participants in the “smashed” condition were more than twice as likely to report seeing broken glass than those in the group given the word hit or in the control condition.
Yes:
Smashed - 16
Hit - 7
Control - 6
No:
Smashed - 34
Hit - 43
Control - 44
What were the conclusions?
The findings indicate that the form of a question (in this case, changes to a single word) can markedly and systematically affect a witness’s answer to that question.
What are the two explanations for the findings?
Response-bias factors:
The different speed estimates occur because the critical word influences or biases a person’s response.
The memory representation is altered:
The critical word changes a person’s memory so that their perception of the accident is affected.
What’s the evaluation point for the two explanations for the findings?
We would expect participants to “remember” other details that aren’t true.
Loftus and Palmer tested this in their second experiment.
In the “smashed” condition, the two pieces of information combine to form a memory of an accident that appears quite severe and therefore generates certain expectations.
For example:
That there’s likely to be broken glass.
The findings from experiment 2 suggest that the effect of leading questions is not the result of response-bias but because leading questions actually alter the memory a person has for the event.
What’s the evaluation point for the methodology and procedures?
Reliable - has standardised procedures, meaning that another researcher could easily repeat this study to see if the results can be replicated.
This study has been replicated by other researchers many times and the results have been found to be consistent.
This is a strength because it suggests that the findings of this study are not just due to chance, but are meaningful, and supports Loftus’s conclusion about the effect of leading questions on memory.
What’s the “controlled experiment” evaluation point?
Conducted their research using experiments.
One advantage of experimental research is that it demonstrates a causal relationship.
By deliberately manipulating the independent variable we can see the causal effect on the dependent variable and draw a causal conclusion.
Confounding variables are controlled so that any change in the dependent variable is due to the dependent variable.
What’s the ecological validity evaluation point?
Participants watched film clips of accidents.
This isn’t the same as witnessing a real accident.
People don’t take the task seriously and / or are not emotionally aroused in the way that they would be in a real accident.
The findings may also not represent real life.
They therefore lack ecological validity.
What did Foster et al (1994) find?
Found that if participants thought they were watching a real - life robbery and also thought that their responses would influence the trail, their identification of a robber was more accurate.
What did Buckout (1980) study?
Involved 2000 participants.
A 13 - second short film was shown on prime - time TV.
Later, an identity parade was shown on TV and viewers were invited to phone in their choice of suspect.
14% got it right.
What’s the sample evaluation point?
Participants in the study were US college students. Other groups of people may be more or less prone to being affected by misleading information than others.
What did Schacter et al (1991) find?
Found that, compared to younger subjects, elderly people have difficulty remembering the source of their information, even though the memory itself is unimpaired.
They become more prone to the effect of misleading information when giving testimony.
What is the valid consent evaluation point?
Didn’t gain valid consent from their participants.
If the participants had been aware of the aims of the study this would have affected their behaviour. They would’ve been aware that the questions were “leading” and more careful in the responses they gave. Their behaviour wouldn’t have reflected EWT in everyday life and wouldn’t provide useful insights.
What’s the deception evaluation point?
From the participants’ point of view the deception could be considered “mild”.
They were not psychologically or physically harmed.
It is unlikely that knowing the true purpose of the study would have led to refusing to take part.
What’s the psychological harm evaluation point?
The participants did not witness a real accident. (They watched film clips)
This meant that they may not have responded to the task in the way that an eye-witness would in a real accident.
One alternative might have been to expose participants to a real accident.
However, this might have been very distressing, leading to psychological harm which would not necessarily be diffused by debriefing.
This study avoided the ethical issue of psychological harm by using film clips.
