Cognitive Research Flashcards
(12 cards)
`Methodology
Two lab experiments
Independent groups design
Exp 1: 45 students
Exp 2: 150 students
Opportunity sampling from Uni of Washington University
IV = Critical world variations
DV 1 = Speed estimmates
DV 2 = Whether broken glass was seen
Procedures: Experiment 1
Split into 5 groups of 9 and shown 7 clips of car accidents (order of clips varied)
Participants filled out short questionnaire including filler questions and the critical question
Critical question: How fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?
*Hit
*Smashed
*Bumped
*Collided
*Contacted
The speed estimate was recorded in MPH
Procedures: Experiment 2
Investigating whether leading questions bias a persons response
Part 1:
P’s shown film of multiple car crash, and asked variations of critical question in 3 groups of 50
Group1: Smashed
Group 2: Hit
Group 3: Control group, no question
Part 2:
A week later P’s called back
Asked: Did you see any broken glass?
None in the film, but it was presumed those with ‘smashed’ may say yes
Findings Experiment 1
Experiment 1:
Smashed 40.8
Hit 39.3
Collided 38.1
Bumped 34.0
Contacted 31.8
Findings Experiment 2
Those who said yes to seeing glass:
Smashed 16
Hit 7
Control 6
Those who said no to seeing glass:
Smashed 34
Hit 43
Control 44
Conclusions
Leading Qs alter memory, which is down to two explanations:
-Response Bias (Critical word biases response causing different speed estimates)
-Memory Is Altered (Critical word changes memory so perceive differently)
Likely due to Memory Representation Altering as shown in experiment 2 where memory of broken glass is changed
Methodology Evaluation
Sample has low population validity and cannot be generalised to those that aren’t students at Washington Uni
They were likely to have shared characteristics e.g. lack of driving experience that could have affected the accuracy of their responses, such as the speed estimation
Procedures Evaluation - Lacks Ecological Validity
Lacks ecological validity as he participants watched clips of accidents, not saw real ones, yet they may respond differently to a real accident, so the accuracy of their responses can be questioned
However, this was necessary as there wouldn’t have been protection form harm without using staged clips and participants may have needed mental health support after, with more harm caused than before they entered the study
Procedures Evaluation - High Controlled Lab Experiment
Took place in controlled lab setting, so extraneous and confiding variable control was high, giving the study more internal reliability and validity
For example, all participants watched the same videos, and there was standardised procedure in how instructions were given
This means Loftus and Palmer were able to establish a strong cause affect as it was unlikely that other variables were affecting their memory
Social Implications
Deception + Informed Consent
Students were deceived about the real aims (leading questions affect on memory), as then they may have presented social desirability and answered questions to fit with aims
This also means they couldn’t give fully informed consent as they didn’t know the true aims
However, these issues can be justified as the deception was not serious and likely wouldn’t have affected willingness to take part, and retrospective consent can be given in the debrief, where participants can also be given the right to withdraw their results if they’re not happy with the study
High Protection From Harm
Staged car accident clips were more ethical than using real ones as it may have been extremely distressing to see, causing more harm than in daily life
The various ethical issues are justified due to the contribution to science as we now place less emphasis on EWT at criminal trials due to their unreliability
