Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Cognitive Psychology > Loftus and Palmer - 1974 > Flashcards

Loftus and Palmer - 1974 Flashcards

1
Q

What is a leading question?

A

a question that prompts or encourages the answer wanted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is a schema?

A

a mental framework that helps organise, process, and store information - they act as filters to perception and recall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How might new information change memory?

A

new information may reshape or distort original memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is an eye witness testimony?

A

an account given by people who were witness to an event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What factors would affect the accuracy of an eye witness testimony?

A
  • stress
  • memory
  • transference
  • schema errors
  • weapon focus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What would cause schema errors?

A
  • past experiences
  • assumptions
  • stereotypes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How do leading questions relate to Loftus and Palmer?

A

They aimed to study the effect of leading questions on recall of memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How do leading questions affect memory?

A
  • introduce new info
  • activate incorrect schemas
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the aim?

A

to investigate how information provided after an event such as the use of leading questions influences a witness’s memory of that event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the sample?

A

195 students

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the weaknesses of the sample?

A
  • small = not representative
  • lacks population validity
  • age bias (all students)
  • students may have fresher driving experience (newly qualified) = more aware and cautious driving
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the method?

A

lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the strengths of the method?

A
  • high control - less impact of EVs
  • standardisation = more reliable
  • able to establish cause and effect (causality)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the weaknesses of the method?

A
  • lacks ecological validity (artificial environment)
  • more likely to have demand characteristics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the design?

A

independent measures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the strengths of the design?

A
  • controls order effects
  • reduced demand characteristics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

How many experiments were there?

A

2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the IV in experiment 1?

A

the verbs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the critical question for experiment 1?

A

‘How fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/collided/contacted/bumped into each other?’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was the DV in experiment 1?

A

the estimated speed of the cars

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What was the sample in experiment 1?

A

45 students from Washington University

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is a weakness of this sample from experiment 1?

A

culture bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What were the materials for experiment 1?

A
  • 7 film clips (same ones for each participant)
  • questionnaire
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

How many of the clips were staged?

A

4/7

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What were the clips of?

A

car crashes

26
Q

What were the range of speeds of the cars in the clips?

A

1 clip = 20mph
1 clip = 30mph
2 clips = 40mph

27
Q

How many different conditions of the IV were there?

A

5

28
Q

What were the 5 verbs?

A

hit, smashed, collided, contacted, bumped

29
Q

How many participants were in each condition of the IV?

A

9 per condition

30
Q

How long did the experiment last?

A

1 hour 30 mins

31
Q

How frequent were the questionnaires?

A

after each clip

32
Q

What did the questionnaires require?

A

asked to describe the accident and then a presented with a series of questions

33
Q

How did researchers avoid order effects in both conditions?

A

counter-balancing

34
Q

What was the mean estimate of the speed when the verb ‘smashed’ was used?

A

40.5

35
Q

What was the mean estimate of the speed when the verb ‘collided’ was used?

A

39.3

36
Q

What was the mean estimate of the speed when the verb ‘bumped’ was used?

A

38.1

37
Q

What was the mean estimate of the speed when the verb ‘hit’ was used?

A

34.0

38
Q

What was the mean estimate of the speed when the verb ‘contacted’ was used?

A

31.8

39
Q

What was the IV in experiment 2?

A

the wording of the question in the questionnaire

40
Q

What were the 3 conditions of the IV?

A
  • hit
  • smashed
  • no speed
41
Q

What was the DV in experiment 2?

A

whether or not participants saw broken glass (Yes/No)

42
Q

What is the sample in experiment 2?

A

150 students

43
Q

How many participants were in each condition of the IV?

A

50

44
Q

What were the materials for experiment 2?

A
  • 1 minute film clip (4 second multi-car crash)
  • questionnaire
45
Q

What did the questionnaire ask?

A

to describe accident and then a series of questions

46
Q

What was the critical question in experiment 2?

A

About how fast were the cars going when they smashed/hit each other?

47
Q

What happened one week after the study in experiment 2?

A

a follow up critical question

48
Q

What was the follow up critical question in experiment 2?

A

‘Did you see any broken glass?’

49
Q

How many participants responded ‘yes’ when asked about the broken glass in the ‘smashed’ condition?

A

16

50
Q

How many participants responded ‘yes’ when asked about the broken glass in the ‘hit’ condition?

A

7

51
Q

How many participants responded ‘yes’ when asked about the broken glass in the control condition?

A

6

52
Q

How many participants responded ‘no’ when asked about the broken glass in the ‘smashed’ condition?

A

34

53
Q

How many participants responded ‘no’ when asked about the broken glass in the ‘hit’ condition?

A

43

54
Q

How many participants responded ‘no’ when asked about the broken glass in the control condition?

A

44

55
Q

What type of data was gathered in this study?

A

quantitative

56
Q

What are the strengths of this type of data?

A
  • objective
  • easier to analyse and compare
57
Q

What are the weaknesses of this type of data?

A
  • cannot establish the reasoning behind behaviours
  • limits usefulness
58
Q

What was a control for both experiments?

A

counterbalancing

59
Q

What are some weaknesses of the results?

A
  • response bias
  • memory distortion
60
Q

What is a response bias?

A

When participants are unclear what speed to estimate so the verb gives a clue on whether to estimate high or low

61
Q

What are the practical applications of this study?

A
  • authorities - helps improve rate of successful crime convictions
62
Q

What are the conclusions of this study?

A
  • the way which questions are phrased can affect the way events are remembered
  • wording of memory can distort memory

Cognitive Psychology (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions