Study 2

• What was the aim of the second experiment conducted by the researchers?

  To investigate if higher speed estimates would lead participants to claim they witnessed broken glass at the scene.
• How many students participated in the second experiment?

  150 students
• How were the students allocated in the second experiment?

  They were allocated to a random condition.
• What did the students watch in the second experiment?

  A 1-minute film depicting a car accident lasting 4 seconds.
• What were the two experimental groups asked in the second experiment?

  The first group was asked about the speed when the cars "smashed" into each other, and the second group was asked about the speed when the cars "hit" each other.
• How many students were in each experimental group and the control group?

  Each group had 50 students.
• What critical question was asked to all participants after a week?

  If there had been broken glass at the accident.
• What was the mean speed estimate for participants who responded to the "smashed" question?

  $10.46 \text{ mph}$
• What was the mean speed estimate for participants who responded to the "hit" question?

  $8.00 \text{ mph}$
• What conclusion was drawn regarding the word "smashed" in the experiment?

  It led to more "yes" responses to broken glass and higher speed estimates.
• What are the strengths of the second experiment?

  • Followed up and better evidenced the first experiment.
  • Confounding variables controlled.
  • Chi-square test conducted to confirm the relationship of results.
• What are the limitations of the second experiment?

  • May lack ecological validity as lab experiments do not always reflect how people remember in real life.