Loftus And Palmer Flashcards
What was Loftus and Palmer studying?
Eyewitness testimony.
What were the theories of the Loftus and Palmer study?
The schema theory proposes that memory is influenced by what an individual already knows, and that they use of past experiences to deal with a new experience is a fundamental feature of the way the human mind works.
Reconstructive memory forms the basis for Loftus and Palmer study.
Background of the study
Loftus and Palmer conducted many studies investigating ways in which memory can be distorted, many of which show that eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable because it can be influenced by the wording of questions.
This study focuses on the effect of leading questions on an individual’s ability to accurately remember events.
What was the research method?
Include experimental method and design.
Both experiment 1 and experiments to were lab experiments using an independent measures design.
What was the IV and DV of experiment one?
The IV was the wording of the critical question hidden in a questionnaire - ‘how fast were the cars going when they hit/ smashed/ collided /contacted /bumped into each other?’
The DV was the estimated speed given by the participants.
What was the IV and the DV of experiment two?
The IV was the wording on a question in the questionnaire:
One group was asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other’
A second group was asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they hit each other’
A third group was not asked about speed.
One week later all the participants were asked to complete another questionnaire which contained the critical question - ‘did you see any broken glass?’ (there was no broken glass). The DV was whether the answer to his question was yes /no.
What were the samples of the experiments?
Experiment 1 - 45 students were divided into five groups with nine participants in each group.
Experiment 2 - 150 students were divided into three groups with 50 participants in each group.
What was the procedure of experiment 1?
All participants were shown the same seven film clips of traffic accidents.
After each group participants were given a questionnaire which asked them about the accident.
There was one critical question in the questionnaire which the wording was different to all five groups.
What was the procedure of experiment 2?
All participants were shown a one minute film which contained a four second car crash.
They were then given a questionnaire which asked them about the accident.
There was a critical question about speed.
Group 1 were asked ‘how fast … smashed into each other’ Group 2 ‘hit into each other’.
The third group did not have a question about speed.
One week later all the participants were asked to complete another questionnaire which contained the further critical question - ‘did you see any broken glass yes or no?’
What were the findings of experiment 1?
Speed estimates for the verbs used in the critical question: Smashed - 40.5 Collided. - 39.3 Bumped - 38.1 Hit - 34 Contacted - 31.8
What were the findings of experiment 2?
Speed estimates for the verbs used in the question about speed. Response 'YES': Smashed - 16 Hit - 7 Control - 6
Response 'NO': Smashed - 34 Hit - 43 Control - 44 Majority claimed that hadn't seen broken glass.
What are the possible conclusions of the study?
The way a question is phrased influences the participants response.
People are not very good at judging vehicle speed.
Misleading post event information can distort an individuals memory.
Strength of the study
Link to study
High internal validity - SVs are controlled , equal distance , volume of clips.
No order effects - independent design, Ps only answered one critical question in both studies.
Limitations of the study
Link to study
No ecological validity die an artificial setting.
Demand characteristics may lead to CVs.
Other PVs and SVs, other than the wording of the critical question, could had lead to the DV E.g. eyesight and distance from the screen.
Reductionism - other events, other than car accidents, can lead to worse / better eye witness testimony. Someone may not drive so couldn’t guess the speed but still have good eyewitness testimony.
