Loftus And Palmer (1974)

Question 1

What was the aim of experiment 1?

Answer 1

Investigate variables (the phrasing of a question) that may affect speed estimates. 
To see if leading questions would affect speed estimates.

Question 2

Where did the research occur in expt 1?

Answer 2

University of Washington

Question 3

How many ppts were there in expt 1?

Answer 3

45 undergraduate students

Question 4

How many films were shown for expt 1 and how long were they?

Answer 4

7
Segments of longer films taken from evergreen safety council and Seattle police department
Each were 5-30 seconds long

Question 5

What followed each film in expt 1?

Answer 5

Ppts given a questionnaire that asked for their account of the accident then critical questions about the speed of the car
9 ppts were asked about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
Then 9 ppts asked the same question in each condition for a different verb (smashed, bumped, collided and contacted)

Question 6

Results of expt 1

Answer 6

Verb.           Mean speed estimates 
Smashed.    40.5
Collided.      39.3
Bumped.      38.1
Hit.                34
Contacted.    31.8

Real speeds of four films were 20, 30, 49 and 40
Average estimates were 37.7, 36.2, 39.7 and 36.1

Question 7

Conclusion of expt 1

Answer 7

The form of question can chandge a persons answer
Due to the ppt being uncertain and the verb biases response toward higher estimates
Or
The question changes the ppts memory representation of the accident. This could mean the ppts could remember other details that didn’t occur but are in line with accidents at higher speeds. This is why expt2 occurred

Question 8

Aim of expt 2

Answer 8

To provide additional insights
Did the change of verb actually change the ppts memory of the crash or just give them an indication of what speed to choose

Question 9

How many ppts in expt 2

Answer 9

150

Question 10

What was the procedure of expt 2?

Answer 10

Film containing a car accident followed by a questionnaire

Film was less than a minute long and the accident lasted 4 seconds.

Question 11

What was in the questionnaire in expt 2?

Answer 11

Describe the accident in Ian words
Series of questions
50 ppts asked about how fast the cars were going when they smashed into each other?
50 ppts asked the same question but with the verb hit instead
50 not asked about speed at all

Question 12

What happened a week later in expt 2?

Answer 12

Without viewing the film again they were asked a series of questions
Including ‘did you see any broken glass?’

There was no broken glass

Question 13

Results of expt 2

Answer 13

Verb. Mean estimate
Smashed 10.46
Hit. 8
This was significantly different

Response smashed hit Control
Yes 16 7 6
No 34 43 44
This was significantly different

Question 14

Conclusion of expt 2

Answer 14

Reinforce results from expt 1
Wording significantly affects the answer given
Severity of verb affected speed estimates and had consequences for a week later. Explanations:
Either info gleaned during the perception of the original event
Or external info supplied after

The two may become integrated so cannot tell them apart and this becoming one memory.

Question 15

Strengths of loftus and Palmer 1974

Answer 15

+large sample size of 150 in expt 2— generalisable
+reliable as findings are in line with previous research in the area and 1&2 agree
+application don’t just rely on ewt and police shouldn’t ask leading questions
+ control over exp eg verb change affecting speed estimates. Internal validity
+not a real car crash so no stress of real life

Question 16

Weaknesses of loftus and Palmer

Answer 16

• small sample size in expt 1 and all from USA Washington uni and all students do not generalisable
• in expt 1 the irder if films varied in each group and this could be reason for results varying
• mundane realism is low as people with low driving experience and study may not have same impact on ppts as a real life crash would as lack of stress and is a questionnaire which isn’t real life police investigation like. So not have same consequences
• no real aim. Deception and no informed consent