Loftus And Palmer Flashcards
What was the aim of Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study?
To investigate how the phrasing of questions influences eyewitness memory, specifically in estimating the speed of vehicles in a car accident.
What was the research method used in Loftus and Palmer’s study?
A laboratory experiment with an independent measures design.
How many experiments were conducted in Loftus and Palmer’s study?
Two experiments.
What was the sample size and composition in Experiment 1?
45 American students participated.
What was the sample size and composition in Experiment 1?
45 American students participated.
Describe the procedure of Experiment 1.
Participants watched seven short films of traffic accidents (5-30 seconds long). After each film, they were asked to describe the accident and answer a critical question about the speed of the vehicles.
What was the critical question in Experiment 1?
“About how fast were the cars going when they _______ each other?” (with the blank filled with different verbs).
What was the purpose of using different verbs in Experiment 1 of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
To investigate whether the intensity of the verb used in a leading question would influence participants’ speed estimates.
How did the verb “smashed” affect participants’ speed estimates?
It led to the highest average speed estimate of 40.8 mph.
How did the verb “contacted” affect participants’ speed estimates?
It led to the lowest average speed estimate of 31.8 mph.
What was the general trend in speed estimates based on verb intensity?
More intense verbs (e.g., “smashed”) led to higher speed estimates, while less intense verbs (e.g., “contacted”) led to lower speed estimates.
What was the main finding from Experiment 1?
The verb used in the question influenced participants’ speed estimates—more intense verbs led to higher speed estimates.
What was the conclusion of Experiment 1?
Memory is not always accurate and can be distorted by leading questions.
What was the sample size and composition in Experiment 2?
150 American students participated.
Describe the procedure of Experiment 2.
Participants watched a one-minute film of a multiple-car crash. They were then divided into three groups and asked different versions of the speed question. One week later, they were asked if they saw broken glass in the film.
What were the three groups in Experiment 2?
“Smashed” group – asked about speed using the word “smashed”.
“Hit” group – asked about speed using the word “hit”.
Control group – not asked about speed at all.
What was the key additional question asked one week later in Experiment 2?
“Did you see any broken glass?” (even though there was none in the film).
What were the results for the broken glass question in Experiment 2?
Smashed group: 32% said yes.
Hit group: 14% said yes.
Control group: 12% said yes.
What was the conclusion of Experiment 2?
Leading questions can alter memory, causing people to remember details that never happened (e.g., seeing broken glass).
What theory does Loftus and Palmer’s study support?
The Reconstructive Memory theory—memory is not a perfect recording but is influenced by new information after the event.
What are the real-world implications of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
It has important implications for eyewitness testimony, suggesting that leading questions in police interviews or courtrooms can distort memory.
Why is high control a strength of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
The study was conducted in a laboratory setting, meaning variables like film length, question wording, and participant experience were controlled, reducing extraneous variables.
Why is replicability a strength of the study?
The study had standardized procedures (same films, same questions), allowing researchers to repeat it to check for consistency and reliability.
How does the study have practical applications?
It highlights how leading questions can influence memory, helping to improve police questioning techniques and courtroom procedures to avoid memory contamination.
Why does the study have low ecological validity?
Watching a video of a car crash is not the same as witnessing a real-life accident, where emotions like shock or anxiety might influence memory differently.
How might demand characteristics have affected the study?
Participants might have guessed the aim of the study and adjusted their speed estimates based on the verb they heard, rather than their actual memory.
Why is the sample a limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
The study used only American university students, which limits generalizability because students may have different driving experience compared to other populations.
