Loftus and Palmer (1974) Study into Eyewitness Testimony

Question 1

Experiment 1, Method

Answer 1

• Participants were shown a film of a multiple car crash,
• Asked a series of questions including ‘how fast do you think they were going when they hit?’, in different conditions, the word hit was replaced with ‘smash’, ‘collided’, ‘bumped’, or ‘contacted’.

Question 2

Experiment 1, results

Answer 2

• Participants given the word ‘smashed’ estimated the highest speed (avg of 41 mph),
• those given the word ‘contacted’ gave the lowest estimate (avg of 32 mph).

Question 3

Experiment 2, method

Answer 3

• Participants split into three groups,
• One group was given the verb ‘smashed’, another ‘hit’, and the third, control group wasn’t given any indication of the vehicles’ speed,
• A week later the group was asked ‘did you see any broken glass?’

Question 4

Experiment 2, results

Answer 4

• Although there was no broken glass in the film, participants were more likely to say that they’d seen broken glass in the ‘smashed’ condition than any other.

Question 5

Experiment 1+2, conclusion

Answer 5

• Leading questions can affect the accuracy of people’s memories of an event.

Question 6

Evaluation

Answer 6

• Had implications for questions in police interviews,
• Artificial experiment; watching a video is not as emotionally arousing as a real-life eventm which potentially affects recall,
• A later study found that participants that thought they had witnessed a real robbery could give an accurate description of the robber,
• Experimental design might lead to demand characteristics, e.g. leading questions might have given the participants clues about the nature of the experiment; could have reduced validity and reliability.