Core Studies - Loftus & Palmer

Front 1

What was loftus & Palmers hypothesis?

Back 1

Wanted to test language used in eye witness testimony and if it can alter memory

Front 2

What was loftus and palmers aim?

Back 2

To show that leading questions or phrasing Q's differently can influence eye witness testimony judgments on speed. To see how accurately people remeber details of accidents

Front 3

Name loftus and palmers experiment name and year

Back 3

Car crash experiment - 1974

Front 4

Name the previous research to loftus and Palmer?

Back 4

Bartlett - memory is not completely accurate and is made from experiences and expectations = reconstructed memory

Front 5

Explain bartletts study (loftus and Palmer - previous research) ?

Back 5

He told participants to recall North American folk tale from native Indian folk - people changed it to to make it shorter, simpler and to fit expectations

Front 6

Devlin report ?

Back 6

Conviction rate was 74% in 3000 cases because of EWT

Front 7

How did Elizabeth loftus test the reliability of EWT

Back 7

Used mock jurors - had to vote guilty/not for fictional shop robbery

Final evidence convinced highest nm of guilty verdicts

Front 8

What research method did loftus and Palmer use?

Back 8

Lab experiment

Front 9

What experimental design was used by loftus and Palmer?

Back 9

Independant group design

Front 10

What conditions were used for the 2 experiments in the loftus and Palmer study?

Back 10

1st experiment: 5 conditions each containing 9 participants (5 diff verbs in the same question)

Front 11

What was the independant variable for the 2 studies for the loftus and Palmer study?

Back 11

The wording of the question (verb)

Front 12

What was the DV for the 2 experiments in the loftus and Palmer study?

Back 12

1st: participants estimates speeds

2nd: answer to critical question (about broken glass)

Front 13

Where was the location of the loftus and Palmer study?

Back 13

University of Washington

Front 14

What was the DV for the 2 experiments in the loftus and Palmer study?

Back 14

1st: participants estimates speeds

2nd: answer to critical question (about broken glass)

Front 15

How many participants were used in the first study loftus and Palmer carried out?

Back 15

45 American students

Front 16

How many participants were used for the second experiment in the loftus and Palmer study

Back 16

150 uni students

Front 17

How were the participants selected for the loftus and Palmer study ?

Back 17

Through opportunity sampling

Front 18

What did the participants have to do in the 1st experiment?

Back 18

They were shown 7 clips for 5-30 seconds

After each clip, thy were asked to write an account of what they saw

Were asked 5 questions - about how fast cars were going when they (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted) each other

Front 19

What did participants in the 2nd experiment have to do in the loftus and Palmer study?

Back 19

Shown a 1 min clip - which had a 4 sec traffic accident

150 split into 3 groups and asked questions

50 - how fast were cars going when they hit each other

50 - how fast cars were going when they smashed into each other

50 - weren't asked about speed

Week later = did you see broken glass (critical question)

Front 20

Give me a strength and weakness for the method used in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ?

Back 20

S: Exp 1: presented films in in a random order - so no order effects (boredom and tired)

W: only obtained quantitative data - doesn't say why people behaved like they did

Front 21

Give me a strength and weakness for the reliability in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ?

Back 21

S: standardised procedure - replicable

W: demand characteristics (guess aims/ look for clues)

Front 22

Give me a strength and weakness for the validity in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ?

Back 22

S: controlled - know iv affected the dv

W: low ecological validity - lack mundane realism ( vid of crash, not real life)

Front 23

Give me a strength and weakness for the sample in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ?

Back 23

S: 2nd experiment - 150 students (large enough to generalise)

W: 1st experiment: lack population validity - (45 students) - less experienced drivers, so less confident to estimate speed

Front 24

Give me a strength and weakness for the validity in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ?

Back 24

S: controlled - know iv affected the dv

W: low ecological validity - lack mundane realism ( vid of crash, not real life)

Front 25

Give me a strength and weakness for the ethics in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ?

Back 25

S: protection of ppts - not witnessing in real life, only film. Informed consent and debrief

W: deception - asked about broken glass = believed into thinking there was broken glas

Front 26

What were the results of the first experiment of loftus and Palmer?

Back 26

Of the 5 verbs used

Smashed = 40.8mph

Collided = 31.8mph

Front 27

What reasons did loftus and Palmer give for the average speed estimates of smashed being the highest?

Back 27

Response bias factors - participants were unsure and adjusted to fit expectations of experimenter, distortion in memory, intense verbalisation

Front 28

What conclusion did l&P draw from the first experiment?

Back 28

That 2 kinds of information enter a persons memory of a compex event - info perceiving event and other info supplied after the event

Front 29

What reasons did loftus and Palmer give for the average speed estimates of smashed being the highest?

Back 29

Response bias factors - participants were unsure and adjusted to fit expectations of experimenter, distortion in memory, intense verbalisation

Front 30

What were the results from the second experiment?

Back 30

Smashed = 2x as likely to see broken glass (16/50 said yes)

Controlled group = 6/50 saying yes

Front 31

What conclusions did l&P draw from the second experiment?

Back 31

Memory is easily distorted by questioning tehniques and info acquired after event - that merge with original memory (reconstructive memory)

Front 32

Name one piece of evidence that supports l&Ps original research?

Back 32

Bartlett - recall and spread Native American folk tale

Front 33

How did bartletts findings support l&P's research

Back 33

Showed memory is innacurate and EWT can be affected by expectations

Front 34

Critically asses bartletts study?

Back 34

Not applicable to real life, l&P research better than lab - better controlled than Bartlett

Front 35

Name one piece of evidence that contradicts l&Ps original research?

Back 35

Bekerian and Bowers - replicated stop signs by loftus et al. Gave slides in original order and doing that recollection was now the same for the consistent and misleading questions

Front 36

How does bekerian and bowers research contradict l&P's?

Back 36

Study suggested that it wasn't the misleading questions that altered perception, but presentation of slides

Front 37

Critically asses bartletts study?

Back 37

Not applicable to real life, l&P research better than lab - better controlled than Bartlett

Front 38

Critically assess bekerian and bowers study?

Back 38

Potential confounding variable - presentation of slides

L&p lack internal validity - not representative of real EWT

Front 39

Name a piece of evidence which supports l&p (not Bartlett) ?

Back 39

Loftus and zanni - showed short film clip car accident, asked if seen 'a or the' broken headlight.

Front 40

Why did loftus and zannis experiment support l&P's research?

Back 40

Shows that information provided after an event can affect our recollection of kit

Front 41

Critically asses loftus and zanni research?

Back 41

Low ecological validity - lacked mundane realism because showed clips

Front 42

Name one piece of evidence which supports l&p ( not Bartlett) ?

Back 42

Yuille and cutshall - real life accident, gun sell owner chased robber and robber was killed ( found post event info doesn't affect memory for real life events)

Front 43

Critically asses Yuille and cutshall' study?

Back 43

Unethical - to distort memory of who witnessed crime.

Sample size too small - lack pop validity

Witnesses who were closer - experienced more stress

Front 44

Name the studies which support and contradict l&P's?

Back 44

Bartlett - support

Bekerian and bower - contradict

Loftus and zanni - support

Yuille and cutshall - support

Front 45

What was the estimate of speed for the smashed condition?

Back 45

40.8mph

Front 46

What was the estimate of speed for the contacted condition?

Back 46

31.8mph

Front 47

How many participants took part in experiment 1?

Back 47

45

Front 48

How many participants took part in experiment 2?

Back 48

150