The Cognitive approach- Loftus + Palmer (2)

Question 1

What was the aims of the study?

Answer 1

> To see if subjects asked the ‘smashed’ question would be more likely than two other groups to report seeing broken glass in a filmed accident when tested one week later.
They were compared to a group asked the ‘HIT’ question and a control group not asked to make a speed estimate
Broken glass would be expected in an accident occurring at high speed. No broken glass shown.
Positive report of broken glass = memory of the event was reconstructed due to information in the form of leading questions received after the event.
How information supplied after an event influences a witness’s memory for that event.

Question 2

What was the procedure?

Answer 2

1. ) PPS watched 1 minute clip which contained 4 sec scene of a multiple car accident and were questioned.
   - 50 asked ‘How fast were the cars travelling when they HIT each other’
   - 50 asked ‘How fast were the cars travelling when they SMASHED into each other
   - 50 not asked about the speed.
2. ) One week later they returned and asked about broken glass.

Question 3

What was the sample

Answer 3

150 students

3 groups of 50

Question 4

What were the quantitative results on whether there was broken glass or not?

Answer 4

YES = SMASHED = 16 
           HIT             = 7
           CONTROL = 6 
NO = SMASHED = 34 
          HIT             = 43
          CONTROL = 44

Question 5

What were the results and conclusions of this experiment?

Answer 5

the word SMASHED = significantly higher speed estimate. Also, more likely to answer YES to “any broken glass” than those in the hit or control conditions.

The verb not only affected the speed estimate but also the likelihood of subjects seeing broken glass. We are inclined to make out memory make sense.
>More severe accident = more likely broken glass was present

Question 6

What are the strengths?

Answer 6

1. ) The study = high level of control enabling the effect of the IV to be isolated and recorded and a causal relationship to be inferred.
2. ) Quantitative data gathered = easy to analyse
3. ) Limited deception
4. )Limited potential harm
5. ) Reliability - standardised control, mass produce questionnaires.

Question 7

What are the weaknesses?

Answer 7

1. ) The PPS are only students = less experience, watch more films(car crashes in.)
2. ) No debriefing
3. ) The questionnaire format may affect results.
4. )Internal validity - questionnaire format may also affect results: - fixed choices, - fatigue, - Order effects

Question 8

Possible improvements?

Answer 8

1. ) Higher ecological validity
2. )Wider sample (leaflets,adverts.)
3. ) Less biased, non pressurising answer.