Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

a level psychology > Loftus and palmer (classic study) > Flashcards

Loftus and palmer (classic study) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What is memory?

A

A cognitive process which is the ability to retain information then recall it later, which will influence how we behave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Barlett’s theory on memory

A

Schemas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are Schemas?

A

Packets of information which are facts learnt from episodes that occur in our lives.
A mental representation of how the world works which allows us to make sense of it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is reconstructive memory?

A

Memory is reconstructed to be coherent and make logical sense to us based on schemas (facts about life we learnt)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How can schemas affect reconstructive memory?

A

They give us biases and prejudices which cause us to change how we remember specific events
Eg, learnt schema that severe car crashes break glass
So recalls glass being broken when recalling event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Theory loftus came up with

A

2 types of info that affects memory of an event:
Info gained at the time of an event
Info gained after, affected by language used when questioned about it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Aim of the study

A

To test with tight controls how language can alter a participants memory of a staged car crash

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Experimental design of this study

A

2 lab experiments both conducted in individual measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Point of Experiment 1

A

To see how a verb in a critical question changes participants estimate of speed and how good they are at estimating vehicle speed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sample used in experiment 1

A

45 participants divided into 5 groups of 9 dependent on the IV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Dependent variable in experiment 1

A

The mean speed estimate participants gave after they were asked the critical question ‘at what speed were the cars going when they _ each other?’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Independent variable in experiment 1

A

The 5 verbs inserted into critical question that determined the condition participants in

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What 5 verbs were used in experiment 1 for the critical question?

A

Contacted, hit, bumper, collided, smashed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Apparatus of experiment 1

A

7 clips of staged car crashes from Seattle police council
Travelling at speeds of 2 at 40mph, 1 at 30mph, 1at 20mph, 3 had no crashes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Step 1 of experiment 1

A

Participants watched each clip 1 by 1 then after each immediately after was given a questionnaire to complete

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How was the questionnaire organised in procedure 1

A

Half of paper was to describe what happened in the film
Other had questions to answer including the critical question (if a crash did occur) and if it did it appear, had to guess speed it was travelling at

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Step 2 of procedure 1

A

The mean speeds dependent on the condition (which verb used in critical question) was worked out

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

How was the data collected in procedure 1?

A

Self report because it measures a cognitive process that only participants can state themself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Descending order of mean speed estimates for each verb in critical question

A

Smashed
Collided
Bumped
Hit
Contacted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Mean estimate for speed of ‘smashed’

A

40.8

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Mean estimate for speed of ‘contacted’

A

31.8

22
Q

What 2 possible conclusions could be made from procedure 1?

A

Response bias in asking questions where participants use verb cues to decide how to answer, showing memory wasn’t necessarily changed
Language (verb used) from info gained after event can actually falsely reconstruct memory

23
Q

Why was procedure 2 conducted?

A

Because inferential analysis showed difference in estimates of speed between smashed or contacted was significant
And to see which conclusion is correct

24
Q

What was the a8m behind procedure 2

A

If participants memory was actually reconstructed then perhaps they will recall details which did not occur

25
Q

Sample used in experiment 2

A

150 seattle students divided into 3 groups of 50

26
Q

Dependent variable in procedure 2

A

The number of participants who will report seeing broken glass 1 week after seeing a staged car crash clip being asked critical question

27
Q

Independent variable in procedure 2

A

3 conditions participants in dependent on critical question asked

28
Q

Critical questions in procedure 2

A

‘How fast were cars going when they smashed?
‘How fast were cars going when they hit?
No question = critical question

29
Q

Apparatus of procedure 2

A

A clip of a staged car crash
Survey with critical questions + smokescreen questions

30
Q

Stage 1 of procedure 2

A

Participants will all watch the same clip of a staged car crash then immediately after complete the survey
This had critical question with a verb changed which could distort memory

31
Q

Stage 2 of procedure 2

A

Wait a week
Then complete a different survey with 10 questions about the accident
The critical question would be ‘did you see any broken glass?’

32
Q

How would memory be shown to be distorted in procedure 2?

A

By participants saying they saw broken glass when there wasn’t showing they had reconstructed memory to believe the accident to be more severe due to critical question saying ‘smashed’

33
Q

What type of data was collected in procedure 2?

A

Nominal quantitative data
Headcount of how many said yes to broken glas

34
Q

How many participants in smashed group report seeing broken glass?

A

16/50

35
Q

How many participants in hit group report seeing broken glass?

A

7/50

36
Q

How many participants in control group report seeing broken glass?

A

6/50

37
Q

Conclusion of experiment 2

A

LEADING QUESTIONS asked after the event contribute to the information gained after the event (changes reconstruction of someone’s memory)

38
Q

Explanation + discussion

A

Memory consists of: info gained during original event and after
Meaning participants were lead to believe the crash was more severe in ‘smashed’ condition and severe crashes usually mean broken Glass (schema) so participants memory reconstructed to believe glass was present

39
Q

Strengths of ethics

A

Participants kept confidential
No harm caused because film had no gore
Participants allowed to withdraw
Gave informed consent to watch videos

40
Q

Weaknesses of ethics

A

Use of smokescreen questions to conceal critical question meant slight deception

41
Q

Strengths of data in this study

A

All quantitative data which can be easily compared and more objective

42
Q

Weaknesses of data

A

No qualitative data collected to find why participants self reported those numbers

43
Q

Strengths of construct validity

A

Lab experiment had meant there were many controls so memory was being measured and not an extraneous variable
Included smokescreen questions to conceal aim of study which could lead to demand characteristics
Reduced order effects by playing films in different order in experiment 1

44
Q

Weaknesses of construct validity

A

Participants may guess answers rather than remembering so not an accurate measure of their memory especially knowing they’re in study

45
Q

Strengths of ethnocentrism

A

Memory and cognitive processes are not specific to a culture so no assumption it is the same for all cultures

46
Q

Weaknesses of ethnocentrism

A

Other cultures not in this university sample not reflected in their memory ability

47
Q

Strengths of sampling method

A

Using opportunity university sample is convenient

48
Q

Weaknesses of sampling method

A

University students not representative of whole population: may have different cognitive abilities and compliance to authority: more demand characteristics?

49
Q

Strengths of reliability

A

Internal: highly standardised for all participants as they all watched the same clips and had same survey
Results reliable due to repeated to show same findings
External: 50 ps per condition in procedure 2 was enough
Proves consistent effect

50
Q

Weakness of reliability

A

9 participants per condition in procedure 1 was not enough

51
Q

Weakness of Ecological validity

A

Lab experiment is not similar to real life:
Given a pre warning to watch a car crash
Wasn’t unexpected
Own safety not put at risk
Perhaps if it were real, distress could have a different effect on memory not measured here

52
Q

Strengths of ecological validity

A

They were interviewed right after the staged crashes were shown

a level psychology (29 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions