Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Research method |
2 experiments in a lab |
|
|
Experimental design |
Independent groups design |
|
|
Participants |
1: 45 students 2: 150 students |
|
|
Procedures in experiment 1 |
7 clips of traffic accidents 5-30 seconds long, then questionnaire used with critical questions about speed when cars “hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted” each other. 5 groups with 9 participants each. |
|
|
Experiment 2 procedures |
In part 1, shown film of a multiple car crash, then were in 3 groups of 50. 2 asked about speed smashed/hit, and control group not asked. Then a week later contacted again to ask if saw any broken glass. |
|
|
Findings for experiment 1 |
Smashed - 40.8 Collided - 39.3 Bumped - 38.1 Hit - 34.0 Contacted - 31.8 |
|
|
Findings in experiment 2 |
Smashed had higher speed estimates than hit. In smashed condition, 16 reported glass, in hit condition 7, control 6. |
|
|
What conclusions can be drawn? |
Response bias factors - critical word influences a persons response Or memory representation is altered - critical word changes perception and memory. |
|
|
Evaluate the experimental method |
Can draw causal conclusions, confounding variables controlled, but low ecological validity (Foster - Robbery) |
|
|
Evaluate the sample |
All US college students - May be age differences, Schaffer found elderly people find remembering source of info difficult. |
|
|
What is alternative evidence to the research? |
Loft us and Braun asked college students if they’ve shaken hands with Bugs or Ariel, more likely to say yes if asked than control group. |
|
|
Ethical issues? |
No valid consent as used deception, may lead to psychological harm. |
