loftus and palmer CRIMINAL

Question 1

aim

Answer 1

to see ppts given if information after the event will change the memories of the event understand hsee how complex memories
understand how we remember compex details of an event

Question 2

sample

Answer 2

experiment 1- 45 ppts 9 ppts per group, american uni students
experiment 2- 150 students 50 ppts per group

Question 3

sample evaluation

Answer 3

weakness- experiment 2 small sample size, prone to anomalies- lacks val, also all from america- ethnocentric- lacks gen, also all of a similar age uni students, unlikely to have been driving for a long thime therefore there perception of speed may not be as good as older drivers- not representitive of majority of drivers, therefore there estimate may be biased

strength- memory seen to be universal so even tho all american, of same age- memory should be universal

LINK BOTH POINTS TO AIM

Question 4

procedure- experiment 1

Answer 4

7 videos, 5-30 seconds of a longer video, split into 5 groups of 9, real crashes, asked to describe the incident, then questionaire 10 questions including critical question ‘ how fast were the cars going when they …. eachother, eached asked different word ‘ smashed, bumped, collided, hit, contacted.

Question 5

procedure evaluation

Answer 5

• strength: standerdised procedure, link to A01- replicate for consistency- link to aim
  -weakness: low ecological validity- lab study
  -strength embadded critical question, independant measures- removed DC’s
• weakness- self reported data, questioanire, response bias subjecitve

Question 6

results experiment 1

Answer 6

hit- 34 mph
smashed 40.5mph

response bias- different speed due to different critical word, how bad word seemed impacted speed estimate
memory is altered- chnage original memory in minds based on new information - word which suggests faster/ slower

Question 7

results evaluation

Answer 7

weakness- mundane relaism, video not the same as real life, not expereincing same emotional stress and anxiety, aware its purpose and not going to determine someones prison sentance, wont elict same stress

Question 8

procedure experiment 2

Answer 8

• 3 groups 50 ppts per group, car crash videos- 1 min 4 seconds long
• describe incident
• questionaire and critical question but only smashed and hit
• 1 week later returned and asked if any glass
• yes or no

Question 9

evaluation procedure 2

Answer 9

• strength- objective, quantitative data, yes/ no- free researcher bias

Question 10

results procedure 2

Answer 10

• yes- 0.32 no 0.14
• speed smashed - 10.46mph
  hit- 8mph
  concluded that verb and leading questions distorts memory

Question 11

evaluation results experiment 2

Answer 11

loftus and zanni support, showed car crash video- asked ‘ did you see A broken headlight’ (7%) did you see THE broken headlight (17%) supports loftus and palmer the word the suggeests it was there- leading leads to memory distortion and response bias

Question 12

application

Answer 12

police officers aware of the effect of post event information given to witness as it can effect their memory through leading and suggestive questions/ phrasing, prevent misconvictions like ronald cotton- innocent project.