Cognitive - Loftus and Palmer

Question 1

What is the background of this study?

Answer 1

Loftus was interested in the fragility of memory how easily we can forget information - also heavily interested in the validity of eye witness testimony. She believed stress could influence the memory of the event they had witnessed as well as the way the interview was carried out

Question 2

What are leading questions?

Answer 2

Questions that lead respondents to a certain answer

Question 3

What is eyewitness testimony?

Answer 3

The account given by people who have seen a certain event

Question 4

What was the aim?

Answer 4

To investigate the effect of language on memory

Question 5

What was the research method?

Answer 5

Lab experiment

Question 6

What was the experimental design used in study 1?

Answer 6

Independent measures

Question 7

What was the sample used in study 1?

Answer 7

45 students split into 5 conditions (9 per conditions)

Question 8

What were the IVs in study 1?

Answer 8

The question: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they ________ each other’

Question 9

What were the DVs in study 1?

Answer 9

Mean speed estimate in mph

Question 10

What were the 5 verbs?

Answer 10

Contacted, bumped, hit, collided, and smashed

Question 11

What was the procedure in study 1?

Answer 11

Sample was shown clips from Evergreen Safety Council fo the Seattle Police Department. The clips lasted between 5 and 30 seconds. 4/7 clips contained staged crashes of which the speed was shown. Clips were shown in a different order. After each clip they were given a questionnaire of 2 parts (give an account of the accident, then they would answer questions on the accident)

Question 12

How was data collected in study 1?

Answer 12

Self-report

Question 13

What were the controls in study 1?

Answer 13

Clips shown, questionnaires given, critical question

Question 14

What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 20 mph?

Answer 14

37.7 mph

Question 15

What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 30 mph?

Answer 15

36.2 mph

Question 16

What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 40 mph?

Answer 16

39.7 mph

Question 17

What was the mean estimate of car speeds by participants when the car was going 50 mph?

Answer 17

36.1 mph

Question 18

What was the mean speed estimate for the verb smashed?

Answer 18

40.8 mph

Question 19

What was the mean speed estimate for the verb collided?

Answer 19

39.3 mph

Question 20

What was the mean speed estimate for the verb bumped?

Answer 20

38.1 mph

Question 21

What was the mean speed estimate for the verb hit?

Answer 21

34.0 mph

Question 22

What was the mean speed estimate for the verb contacted?

Answer 22

31.8 mph

Question 23

What was the type of data collected in study 1?

Answer 23

Quantitative

Question 24

What were the conclusions of study 1?

Answer 24

People aren’t good at estimating speed, and the form of the question given does change a witness’ answer

Question 25

What was the explanation of results for study 1?

Answer 25

1. Response bias - the tendency to give an answer based upon the situation 2. Language used changes the memory of the event (This is what they aimed to loo at in the second experiment)

Question 26

What was the experimental design for experiment 2?

Answer 26

Independent measures - different people in each group

Question 27

What was the sample of experiment 2?

Answer 27

150 students in 2 conditions - 50 per group

Question 28

What was the IV in experiment 2?

Answer 28

The leading question asked of participants

Question 29

What was the DV in experiment 2?

Answer 29

Accuracy of memory "Did you see any broken glass" - all of the videos had none

Question 30

What was part 1 of the procedure in experiment 2?

Answer 30

Participants watched clips lasting 1 minute of multiple car crashes (4 seconds), they then answered a questionnaire which was asking about the speed of the cars when they smashed or hit into each other

Question 31

What was part 2 of the procedure in experiment 2?

Answer 31

A week later participants returned to answer ten more questions including the critical "did you see any broken glass?"

Question 32

How was the data collected in experiment 2?

Answer 32

Self report - used a questionnaire

Question 33

What were the controls in experiment 2?

Answer 33

Clips shown, the question asked a week later, the questionnaire, same researchers

Question 34

What was the mean estimate of speed (mph) for subjects interrogated with smashed?

Answer 34

10.46

Question 35

What was the mean estimate of speed (mph) for subjects interrogated with hit?

Answer 35

8

Question 36

What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the smashed condition?

Answer 36

16

Question 37

What was the number of people who said they didn't see glass in the smashed condition?

Answer 37

34

Question 38

What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the smashed condition?

Answer 38

16

Question 39

What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the hit condition?

Answer 39

7

Question 40

What was the number of people who said they didn't see glass in the hit condition?

Answer 40

43

Question 41

What was the number of people who said they did see glass in the control group?

Answer 41

6

Question 42

What was the number of people who said they didn't see glass in the control group?

Answer 42

44

Question 43

What was the type of data collected in experiment 2?

Answer 43

Quantitative

Question 44

What was the conclusions in experiment 2?

Answer 44

The question asked after an event can affect the speed a witness perceives as well as whether they saw broken glass

Question 45

What was the explanation of results for experiment 2?

Answer 45

Reconstruction memory - due to 2 influences - our own perception of the original event and external information given after the event - overtime these can be merged

Question 46

What ethical guideline was upheld?

Answer 46

Consent - students consented to taking part in the study (however they were told it was a study on memory)

Question 47

What ethical guideline was broken?

Answer 47

Deception - they weren't told the true aim and they were lead to believe there was broken glass Harm - viewing crashing video could cause harm

Question 48

Point for internal reliability?

Answer 48

Replicated procedure with heavy controls - 7 videos to ensure it wasn't just for ONE video

Question 49

Point for external reliability?

Answer 49

Study 1 - sample too small Study 2 - Sample sufficient to suggest consistent effect

Question 50

Point for internal validity?

Answer 50

Very controlled tests and the critical question was hidden amongst filler questions

Question 51

Point for external (ecological) validity?

Answer 51

Eye witness interviewers are usual (exp 2) but not questionnaires - not really crashes and only video clips

Question 52

Point for external (population) validity?

Answer 52

Students perhaps better at memory? - large sample overall

Question 53

Is this study applicable only to the culture in which the reattach was carrier out, or could the findings apply elsewhere?

Answer 53

The study was only carried out on American Students - however it is argued that cognitive processes are universal (the same for everyone)