Loftus & Palmer (1974) - Exp. 2

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To see if leading questions could not only distort speed estimation but also cause false memories (e.g., recalling broken glass that wasn’t there)

Question 2

Participants

Answer 2

150 students, randomly assigned to three groups:
* “smashed” group
* “hit” group
* control group (no speed question)

Question 3

Method

Answer 3

All P watched 1-minute accident clip
* described accident and answered questions
* answered another set of questions: “Did you see any broken glass?” (there was none)

Question 4

Results

Answer 4

P in “smashed” group were more likely to falsely remember seeing broken glass, supporting the idea of memory reconstruction and schema-driven recall
* speed estimates:
* “smashed”: 10.46 mph
* “hit”: 8 mph
* broken glass response:
* yes (smashed): 16 P
* yes (hit): 7 P
* yes (control): 6 P

Question 5

Strengths (name 3)

Answer 5

• cause-effect relationship established due to control over variables
• clear manipulation of independent variable
• added depth by examining flase memory formation
• supports Bartlett’s theory of RM

Question 6

Limitations (3)

Answer 6

• low ecological validity: still based on film footage, not real accident
• sample bias: only students - not generalisable
• artificial setting may limit emotional engagement and realism