Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Z: AS Psychology (Cognitive) > Loftus and Palmer (eyewitness testimony) > Flashcards

Loftus and Palmer (eyewitness testimony) Flashcards

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

Define memory.

A

Retention of learning or experience

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

What did Loftus believe about memory prior to the event?

A

Use of leading questions could distort a person’s memory of an event.

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

What is a leading question?

A

A question that suggests what answer is desired or leads to the desired answer.

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

What was the aim of the study?

A

To see if information supplied after an event influences a witness’s memory for that event.

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

What was the method used in this study?

A

Two laboratory experiments of the independent measures design.

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

What was the independent variable of the first experiment?

A

The verb used

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

What was the independent variable of the second experiment?

A

The verb used

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

What was the independent variable?

A

The verb used

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

What was the dependent variable in the first experiment?

A

The participant’s speed estimate

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

What was the dependent variable in the second experiment?

A

Whether the participant believed they saw glass.

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

What was the independent and dependent variable of the first experiment?

A 
IV = verb used
DV = Participant's speed estimate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was the independent and dependent variable of the second experiment?

A 
IV = verb used
DV = Whether the participant saw glass
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How many participants were in the first experiment?

A

45

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

Where were the participants for the 1st experiment gathered from?

A

The University of Washington

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

Describe the sample of the 1st experiment.

A

45 students from the University of Washington

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

What was the procedure of the 1st experiment?

A

The participants were shown 7 film clips of traffic accidents, extracted from safety films for driver education. The clips ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long. Students then asked to write an account of the accident they saw, answering specific questions. Critical q = speed of the vehicles in which the verb changed. A different ordering of the films was presented to each group of participants.

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

How many film clips were participants shown?

A

7

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

Where did the experimenters find the clips of accidents to show the participants?

A

From safety films made for driver education

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

What was the procedure of the 1st experiment?

A

The participants were shown 7 film clips of traffic accidents, extracted from safety films for driver education. The clips ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long. Students then asked to write an account of the accident they saw, answering specific questions. Critical q = speed of the vehicles in which the verb changed. 5 conditions (of 9 participants) = 5 different verbs. A different ordering of the films was presented to each group of participants.

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

Where did the experimenters find the clips of accidents to show the participants?

A

From safety films made for driver education

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

How long were the clips?

A

Ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What was the critical question the participants were asked?

A

“About how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?”, and the verb was different in each condition.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

How many conditions were in the 1st experiment?

A

5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

How many film clips were participants shown in the 1st experiment?

A

7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Where did the experimenters find the clips of accidents to show the participants in the 1st experiment?

A

From safety films made for driver education

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How long were the clips in the 1st experiment?

A

Ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What was the critical question the participants were asked in the 1st experiment?

A

“About how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?”, and the verb was different in each condition.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

How many conditions were in the 1st experiment?

A

5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

How many participants were in each condition in the 1st experiment?

A

9

30
Q

What were the 5 conditions in the 1st experiment?

A

Different verbs in the critical questions; smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted

31
Q

What was the mean speed estimate (mph) for the verb ‘smashed’ in the 1st experiment?

A

40.8

32
Q

What was the mean speed estimate (mph) for the verb ‘contacted’ in the 1st experiment?

A

31.8

33
Q

What was the verb with the highest speed estimate (mph) in the 1st experiment?

A

Smashed

34
Q

What was the verb with the lowest speed estimate (mph) in the 1st experiment?

A

Contacted

35
Q

What do the results of the 1st experiment show?

A

That the phrasing of the question brought about a change in speed estimate with ‘smashed’ producing a higher speed estimate than ‘contacted’

36
Q

Give the order from fastest to slowest of the 5 conditions/verbs of the 1st experiment’s results.

A
  1. Smashed
  2. Collided
  3. Bumped
  4. Hit
  5. Contacted
37
Q

What were Loftus and Palmer’s 2 interpretations of their findings from the 1st experiment?

A
  1. Results could be due to a distortion in the participant’s memory through the verbal label, used to characterise the intensity of the crash
  2. Response-bias factors (e.g. demand characteristics) whereby the participant isn’t sure of the exact speed thus adjusts their estimate to fit in with the expectations of the questioner
38
Q

What was the main purpose behind L&P’s use of the second experiment?

A

To see if whether distorting your memory for one aspect of an event can then lead to distortions of other aspects

39
Q

What was the sample of the second experiment?

A

150 new participants (also from UoW)

40
Q

What was the procedure of the second experiment?

A

150 participants viewed a short 1 minute film, containing a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident and were then questioned about it. 3 conditions = 2 words (smashed;hit) + not asked about speed. Participants returned 1 week later to answer qs about the accident; critical q = “Did you see any broken glass?” (DV) placed in random position amongst other qs. THERE WAS NO BROKEN GLASS IN THE FILM.

41
Q

In the second experiment, how long was the film shown to the participants?

A

1 minute

42
Q

In the 1 minute film shown to participants in the second experiment, how long was the scene of the multiple car accident?

A

4 seconds

43
Q

In the film shown to participants in the second experiment, how long was the scene of the multiple car accident?

A

4 seconds

44
Q

How many conditions were there in the second experiment?

A

3

45
Q

What were the 3 conditions of the second experiment?

A
  • “How fast were the cars going when they HIT each other?”
  • “How fast were the cars going when they SMASHED each other?”
  • Not interrogated about the speed of the vehicles
46
Q

How many participants were in each of the 3 conditions of the second experiment?

A

50

47
Q

After how long did the participants return to answer questions following the initial viewing of the film in the second experiment?

A

1 week

48
Q

What was the critical question asked to participants in the second experiment?

A

“Did you see any broken glass?”

49
Q

Was there actually broken glass in the film shown to participants in the second experiment?

A

No

50
Q

In which condition did most people believe they had seen broken glass (in the second experiment)?

A

Smashed

51
Q

In which conditions were people less likely to believe they had seen broken glass (in the second experiment)?

A

The control group (who were not interrogated about the speed of the vehicles) and the ‘hit’ group

52
Q

What were the results of the second experiment?

A

People in the smashed group were twice as likely to say they had seen glass than the hit/control group were, but overall most people still answered correctly that there was no broken glass.

53
Q

What were the conclusions of the second experiment’s results?

A
  • Verb in the leading q has a significant affect on our memory because those who heard verb ‘smashed’ were twice as likely to say they had seen broken glass in the film clip (when there wasn’t any) compared with the other groups that heard ‘hit’ or weren’t interrogated
  • Memory still quite reliable as the majority of participants in each condition recalled correctly that there was no broken glass in the film clip
54
Q

What explanation did Loftus and Palmer construct to explain the results of the second experiment?

A

RECONSTRUCTIVE HYPOTHESIS THEORY, whereby two components of information make up someone’s memory of an event: information supplied before the event (video of the car accident) and information supplied after the event (question containing specific verb). Details merge to create one memory.

55
Q

What is the reconstructive hypothesis theory?

A

Whereby two components of information make up someone’s memory of an event: information supplied before the event (video of the car accident) and information supplied after the event (question containing specific verb). Details merge to create one memory.

56
Q

Give two criticisms of this study.

A
  • Lack of ecological validity

- Unrepresentative sample

57
Q

How did the study lack ecological validity?

A

Participants did not have any personal involvement in the event - in real life when we witness events we often would have some involvement in the people or the action (emotional?). There would also be consequences to our statement (prosecution?) which there wasn’t in the study.

58
Q

What was an issue with the sample in this study?

A

Used only students who could be very different to other people, as used to remembering useless information/good at memory tasks. This means other people’s memories may not be affected by leading questions in the same way.

59
Q

What is a strength with the way this study was carried out?

A

High amounts of control

60
Q

How did the study have high amounts of control?

A

Loftus controlled what the participants saw (all saw the same film clips for the same amount of time) so any differences in recall of speed should only be attributed to the verb in the leading q rather than what they witnessed. All participants were asked the same questions and the position of the critical q was randomised, meaning again that it was the verb specifically that altered their memories.

61
Q

What were the implications of the study?

A
  • Trial judge be required to instruct the jury that it is not safe to convict on a single eyewitness testimony alone, except in exceptional circumstances or where there is substantial corroborative evidence
  • Reconstructive hypothesis theory meant police and lawyers urged to use as few leading qs as poss.
  • Separating witnesses so they can’t contaminate each others memories
62
Q

Outline one finding from the study. [2]

A

/

63
Q

Outline 2 possible reasons for varying estimations of speed from the participants according to the verb used. [4]

A

/

64
Q

a) L&P suggested 2 kinds of info go into a person’s memory of a complex event. Identify one of these two kinds of information.
b) What does the existence of these two kinds of information tell us about memory?

A

a)

b)

65
Q

In the 2nd experiment, the use of verbs ‘smashed’ and ‘hit’ led to different participant responses.

a) Outline one of these differences. [2]
b) Give one explanation for why these differences were found. [2]

A

a)

b)

66
Q

Suggest one way in which the ecological validity of the study could be improved, in relation to the clips of car accidents shown to participants. [2]

A

/

67
Q

a) Outline one finding which would challenge the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
b) Outline one finding which would support the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

A

a)

b)

68
Q

a) Outline one finding which would challenge the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. [2]
b) Outline one finding which would support the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. [2]

A

a)

b)

69
Q

a) L&P suggested 2 kinds of info go into a person’s memory of a complex event. Identify one of these two kinds of information.
b) What does the existence of these two kinds of information tell us about memory?

A

a) One of these kind of information part of the reconstructive hypothesis theory is information supplied after the event. In this experiment, this came from the verb used in the critical question, e.g. bumped, smashed, hit.
b)

70
Q

In the 2nd experiment, the use of verbs ‘smashed’ and ‘hit’ led to different participant responses.

a) Outline one of these differences. [2]
b) Give one explanation for why these differences were found. [2]

A

a) One of these differences was that participants exposed to the verb “smashed” were twice as likely to say they saw broken glass than those with the verb “hit”.
b)

Z: AS Psychology (Cognitive) (3 decks)

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