Loftus And Palmer Flashcards
(19 cards)
What was the aim of Experiment 1 in Loftus & Palmer’s study?
To investigate whether the wording of a question (e.g. smashed vs hit) would influence participants’ estimates of the speed of cars in a filmed accident.
What was the aim of Experiment 2 in Loftus & Palmer’s study?
To investigate whether leading questions simply bias a response or actually alter a person’s memory of the event.
What research method and design did Loftus & Palmer use?
Laboratory experiments using an independent groups design with different participants in each condition.
How many participants were in each experiment?
Experiment 1: 45 US college students
Experiment 2: 150 US college students
Describe the procedure of Experiment 1.
Participants watched 7 film clips of car accidents and answered a questionnaire. One key question asked: “How fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?” with 5 different verbs (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted).
Describe the procedure of Experiment 2.
Part 1: Participants watched a crash film and answered speed questions with verbs hit or smashed, or were in a control group.
Part 2 (1 week later): All were asked “Did you see any broken glass?” (There was none.)
What were the mean speed estimates in Experiment 1?
Smashed: 40.8 mph
Collided: 39.3 mph
Bumped: 38.1 mph
Hit: 34.0 mph
Contacted: 31.8 mph
What were the results of Experiment 2 (speed estimates)?
Smashed: 10.46 mph
Hit: 8.00 mph
What were the results of Experiment 2 (broken glass)?
Smashed: 16 said yes
Hit: 7 said yes
Control: 6 said yes
What did Loftus & Palmer conclude from Experiment 1?
The wording of a question affects EWT. This could be due to response bias or memory alteration (e.g. “smashed” made the accident seem more severe).
What did they conclude from Experiment 2?
Leading questions can alter memory—information from the original event and post-event information can combine to form one memory (memory reconstruction).
What is a strength of Loftus & Palmer’s study?
High control in a lab setting reduces confounding variables, increasing internal validity—we can be more confident the IV (wording) caused the change in DV (speed estimate).
Why might Loftus & Palmer’s study lack population validity?
It used only US college students, which limits generalisability to other age groups or cultural backgrounds.
Why does the study lack ecological validity?
Participants watched film clips instead of witnessing real-life accidents, so emotional and memory responses may not reflect real-world EWT.
How do field studies challenge Loftus & Palmer’s findings?
Yuille & Cutshall (1986) found real witnesses of a robbery had accurate recall, even after 4 months, despite being given misleading information.
What is an ethical concern about valid consent in the study?
Participants were deceived about the true aims, so could not give fully informed consent—but deception was mild and debriefing likely occurred.
How did Loftus & Palmer reduce psychological harm?
By showing staged crash clips instead of real footage, they protected participants from distress, even though this reduced ecological validity.
Why are Loftus & Palmer’s findings important for the justice system?
Shows that leading questions can distort memory, meaning EWT may not always be reliable—this has led to caution in using EWT as sole evidence in court.
What impact did their research have on police interview techniques?
Helped develop the Cognitive Interview, which avoids leading questions and improves the accuracy of witness recall.
