Loftus and Palmer - Cognitive Area

Question 1

backround

Answer 1

• eivdence concluded that eyewitness memory of events is considerably less accurate that we would like to believe
• in 1970’s severak studies had shown that people tend to overestimate the time and speed involved
• tests wether the phrasing of questions about a car accident could alter participats memory of an event

Question 2

method

Answer 2

• labatory experiment
• independent measures

Question 3

materials/apparatus

Answer 3

• vidoe of the car crash
• pen and paper to write down an account of what happened in the accident
• the questions asked after the video was shown (critical question)

Question 4

procedure

Answer 4

• particiapnts were shown seven films of car crashes taken from the traning films used by the seatle police department
• in 4 films ths speed in these films were 20mph, 30,40,40
• aftwe watching the films all participants were asked to write an account of the accident and then to answer questions
• got asked the questions “about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other” (hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted)
• experiment 2: to see if any of the participants saw that there was any broken glass

Question 5

results

Answer 5

• quantatative data
• experiment 1: the word “smashed” has the highest mean of estimated speed with 40.5mph and the word “contacted” had the lowest

Question 6

conclusions

Answer 6

• contacted had the least estimated speed and shmashed had the highest
• memory distortion, the verb used in the question actually alters a participants memory of the crash
• reponse bias, when a participant is unclear what speed to estimate the verb gives them a clue as to wether they should estimate a high or low figure

Question 7

strengths and weaknesses of different research methods and techniques

Answer 7

negatives:
- lacks ecological validity (made to watch a video instead of real life)
- lab experiment (demand characteristics)

positives:
- lab experiment (extraneous varibles are controlled) and can be repeated
- standardised procedure so it can be generalised

Question 8

strengths and weaknesses of different types of data

Answer 8

• quantatative data: easy to compare and anaylse results
• no qulatative data: includes no opinions and comments
• lacks ecological validity (had to watch a video instead of in real life - more likely to remeber details)

Question 9

ethical considerations

Answer 9

• no physical, mental or psychological harm caused
• no deception
• able to withdraw answering questions or watching the video
• no consent given to watch the video or answering questions

Question 10

sample / participants

Answer 10

• 150 participants took part in 2 experiment
• no gender or age was recorded

Question 11

materials / apparatus

Answer 11

• video of car crashes
• pen and paper to write down an acocunt of what happened in the accident
• the questions asked the video was shown (ctirical question)

Question 12

validity

Answer 12

• lab experiment - able toc ontrol enviroment, ensures that few extraneous varibles could influence the outcomes
• validity could be reduced by lack of realism

Question 13

reliability

Answer 13

• lab experiment - highly standardised which makes them reliable and repicable
• very similar results were found between experiments 1 and 2

Question 14

sampling bias

Answer 14

• all students could be vunerable to demand characteristics
• all students (used to taking in information and being tested on it, might be better at recalling than non-students)
• participants are less likely to drive than others - speed estimates would be less accurate

Question 15

ehtnocentric

Answer 15

• all undergraduates students at washington, all stidying the same course
• simila ages