Loftus and Palmer

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

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.
Interference occurs when later learning interferes with previous learning.
For example:
Incoming information gets integrated and confused with our existing knowledge.

Question 2

Leading questions - definition

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Methodology

Answer 3

Two experiments.
Laboratory.
Independent groups design.
Each experiment was conducted with a different number of participants:
Experiment 1 = 45 student participants.
(5 groups of 9)
Experiment 1 = 150 student participants.
(3 groups of 50)

Question 4

Experiment 1

Answer 4

Participants 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(They were originally made as part of a driver safety film)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.

Question 5

Verbs used in leading question

Answer 5

Smashed
Collided
Bumped
Hit
Contacted

Question 6

Experiment 2 - aim

Answer 6

Whether leading questions simply bias a person’s response or actually alter the memory that is stored.

Question 7

Experiment 2 part 1

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Experiment 2 part 2

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Experiment 1 - findings

Answer 9

Mean speed was calculated for each experimental group.
Smashed - 40.8
Collided - 39.3
Bumped - 38.1
Hit - 34.0
Contacted - 31.8

Question 10

Experiment 2 part 1 - findings

Answer 10

Participants gave higher speed estimates in the smashed conditions,
just like the participants in experiment 1.

Question 11

Experiment 2 part 2 - findings

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Conclusions

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

Two explanations for the findings

Answer 13

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.
Some critical words would lead someone to have a perception of the accident having been more serious.

Question 14

Second explanations - evaluation

Answer 14

If the second conclusion is true, 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.

Question 15

Methods and procedures

Answer 15

One strength of this study is that it is reliable.
The study 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.

Question 16

Controlled experiment

Answer 16

Loftus and Palmer 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.
This is especially true in a laboratory study where potentially confounding variables are carefully controlled so that any change in the dependent variable is due to the dependent variable.
In field experiments or real - life examples, other factors may influence behaviour.

Question 17

Ecological validity

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Foster et al (1994)

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Answer 19

Found evidence of greater accuracy in real life.
Witnesses to an armed robbery in Canada gave accurate reports of the crime four months after the event even though they had initially been given two misleading questions.
This suggests that misleading information may have less influence on real - life EWT.

Question 20

Buckout (1980)

Answer 20

Conducted a “real - life” 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.

Question 21

Sample

Answer 21

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. Example:
There may be age differences.
This may be a consequence of source monitoring.
An eye - witness typically acquires information from 2 sources:
From observing the event itself.
From subsequent suggestions (misleading information).

Question 22

Source monitoring - definition

Answer 22

Where does the memory originate from?

Question 23

Schacter et al (1991)

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Lack of valid consent

Answer 24

Loftus and Palmer 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.

Question 25

Deception

Answer 25

Is deception acceptable?
Researchers can justify it in terms of the importance of this research.
It had a profound effect on our understanding of the inaccuracy of EWT.
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.

Question 26

Psychological harm

Answer 26

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.
The emotional impact might have also been long lasting.
This study avoided the ethical issue of psychological harm by using film clips.

Question 27

Braun et al (2002)

Answer 27

College students were asked to evaluate advertising material about Disneyland.
Embedded in this material was misleading information about either Bugs Bunny or Ariel (neither character could have been seen at Disneyland because Bugs is not Disney and Ariel hadn’t been introduced at the time of their childhood).
Participants were assigned to the Bugs, Ariel or a control condition (no misleading information).
All had visited Disneyland.
Participants in the Bugs or Ariel group were more likely to report having shaken hands with these characters than the control group.
This shows how misleading information can create an inaccurate (false) memory.