Theory of Reconstructive Memory Flashcards
What is Loftus and Palmer’s 1974 study?
Test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.
What is the procedure of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
Loftus and Palmer asked people to estimate the speeds of motor vehicles using different forms of questions. Estimating vehicle speeds are something people are generally poor at and so they may be more open to suggestion.
The study started with 45 American students forming an opportunity sample. This was a laboratory experiment with 5 conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant. 7 films of traffic accidents, ranging in duration from 5 to 30 seconds, were presented in a random order to each group. After watching the film participants were asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses. They were then asked specific questions, including the question, “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted) each other?”. Therefore, the IV was the wording of the question and the DV was the speed reported by the participants. The participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph), followed by “collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted” (31.8 mph) in descending order.
What are the findings of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
Participants who were asked the “smashed” question thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the “hit” question. In other words, eyewitness testimony might be biased by the way questions are asked after a crime is committed. Loftus and Palmer offered two possible explanations for this result. One of them being Response-Bias Factor: The misleading information provided may have influenced the answer a person gave but didn’t actually lead to the creation of a false memory of the event. Next, the representation of the memory was altered. The critical verb changes a person’s perception of the accident - some critical words would lead someone to have a perception of the accident being more serious. This perception is then stored in a person’s memory of the event.
What is the conclusion of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
As a result, the estimated speed was affected by the verb used. The verb implied information about the speed, which systematically affected the participants’ memory of the accident.
Strengths of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
- Important study as it changed the way eyewitnesses were viewed (before, eyewitnesses were taken as truth)
- Lab experiment - highly controlled - cause and effect relationship can be identified
Limitations of Loftus and Palmer’s study?
- Lacks mundane reality
- Student sample - education may play a role in how each word is interpreted
What is the aim of Laney et al’s 2008 study?
To investigate whether false feedback could lead to false memory, where in which the participant believed they enjoyed asparagus during childhood.
Procedure of Laney’s study?
Participants were told that it was for a study of the relationship between “food preferences and personality.” 128 university students (99 females) found through opportunity sampling were separated into 2 conditions: “love” group and a control group.
In the first session of the study, all participants completed 5 questionnaires: Food History Inventory, Food preferences Questionnaire, Restaurant Questionnaire as well as two filler questionnaires which included personality Questionnaire and Desirability Scale.
They were given a report about their childhood experiences based on their questionnaires. The participants in the ‘love’ condition had the critical statement ‘you loved to eat cooked asparagus’ in their report.
Participants then viewed 20 slides, each for 30 seconds, and completed 4 ratings of each slide such as degree of disgust. The slides contained photographs of common food including the critical item Asparagus. They then completed the questionnaires again. Participants were debriefed about the true aim of the study at the end of the study.
Findings of Laney’s study?
It was found that the mean confidence of the love group liking asparagus increased from 1.7 to 4.2 (by 2.5 points) whilst for the control group increased from 1.45 to 2.52 ( by 1.1 points).
Conclusions from Laney’s study?
It is possible to implant false positive memories in individuals and these will have consequences on their attitude and behaviour towards food. Memory is not reliable and can be altered through the use of false information believed to be true.
What is the aim of Yuille and Cutshall’s 1986 study?
They investigated the accuracy of recall of eyewitnesses to real crime, in response to leading questions and our time.
Procedure of Yuille and Cutshall’s study?
The study consisted of 21 eye witnesses that were interviewed by the police immediately after. Out of 21, 13 agreed to take part in a research interview 4 to 5 months later.
There were two sets of interviews, where the eyewitnesses were asked about either a broken headlight or a yellow panel. In both cases, these were just leading questions as there were in fact no broken headlight and the colour of the panel was actually blue instead of yellow.
The witnesses were then asked to describe their degree of stress using a scale 1-7 and was also questioned if they experienced any emotional problems since the event.
Findings of Yuille and Cutshall’s study?
It was found that the eye witnesses were more reliable than they seemed. They recalled a large amount of accurate detail that could be confirmed by the original police reports. 10 out of 13 of them said there was no broken headlight or yellow quarter panel, or that they hadn’t noticed the headlights or yellow panel. The researchers found that the accuracy of the witnesses compared to the original policy reports was between 79% and 84%. It appears that this research contradicts the study by Loftus & Palmer (1974).
Conclusions of Yuille and Cutshall’s study?
Eyewitnesses are not as incorrect in their accounts as laboratory studies suggest. Most witnesses were extremely accurate and were still up to 5 months after the event.
They also found that eyewitness testimonies can’t be too easily swayed by misleading questions. But it should be acknowledged that they may remember more due to memory being memorable and unusual. And it may be different results to laboratory studies as they do not capture the involvement.
Overall, suggests that though some tiny details may be wrong, others could be extremely accurate.
Strengths of Yuille and Cutshall’s study?
- The study was a field study and thus has a very strong ecological validity
- As the researchers were replicating the police interviews to a great extent, they found very similar details/results the study could be said to be reliable.
- There was archival evidence (police records of the original testimonies) to confirm the accuracy of the memories.
