Loftus and Palmer

• Semantic(Schema-Loftus and Palmer)



  memory of facts
• Episodic(schema-Loftus and Palmer)



  memory of events
• schema(Loftus and Palmer)

  is a mental framework/mental representation/ pattern we use(made of episodic + semantic memories)
• Input(Loftus and Palmer)



  -process of data entry(done through our senses e.g. sight)
• Encoding(Loftus and Palmer)

  -data is changed into another format so that it can be recognized

  3 types:

  • Acoustic encoding- sound
  • Visual encoding-producing an image of what someone/something looks like
  • Semantic encoding- thinking about the meaning of the information
• Storage(Loftus and Palmer)


  
-where information is held(sensory/short term/long term)
• Retrieval(Loftus and Palmer)


  -where information is located and taken out of storage(recognition of different cues)

  -If we cant find the information that means its been forgotten
• Output(Loftus and Palmer)



  -using dater after it has been retrieved(e.g. write it down)
• schema's(Loftus and Palmer)


  -are used to fill in gaps of our actual memories with other information that we actually know
• How Schemas affect memories(Loftus and Palmer)

  1. Guiding the selection of what is encoded & stored (helps our brain decide what to pay attention to/remember)
  2. Abstracting information from events(only store information from events if it stands out.)
  3. Helps us decide how to behave in new situations
  4. Distortion (info can be changed)
  5. Aids retrieval
• leading question(Loftus and Palmer)


  is a question that suggests a specific answer or tries to influence the person’s response.(asking a witness will make their testimony unreliable because what they remember is inconsistent)
• Background(Loftus and Palmer)


  RESEARCH INTO MEMORY:

  -our memories=inaccurate

  -profound consequences on eye witness testimony

  -our memories do not record what happened
• Background(Loftus and Palmer)


  ESTIMATING SPEED:

  -people are very inaccurate when estimating a speed of a car

  -James Marshall-found air force personnel=were very inaccurate

  -it might be quite easy to influence the answers that people give to numerical questions
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(Experiment 2)

  Aim -to see if estimates given by the participants(speed of vehicles in a traffic accident )would be influenced by the wording of the question
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(Experiment 1)

  METHOD:

  Lab experiment-using independent measures/snapshot study

  IV=Verb given to participants

  DV=speed estimates

  • Shown 7 clips/og made from driver education program(Evergreen Safety Council and the Seattle Police Department.)/Length of video= 5 to 30 seconds
  • SAMPLE:45 American students
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(Experiment 1)

  PROCEDURE:

  -After each clip-participants were given a questionnaire(asked them to describe the accident)

  -one critical question: ‘about how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?(one group this Q the other 4 with different verbs-smashed/collided/bumped/contacted instead of hit)

  -each group= 9 participants

  -different ordering of film clips was used

  -whole procedure lasted=1.5H's
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(experiment 1)

  RESULTS:

  -The group given the word ‘smashed’ estimated a higher speed than the other groups (40.8mph)

  -he group given the word ‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed (31.8mph).

  • Smashed = 40.8
  • Collided = 39.3
  • Bumped = 38.1
  • Hit = 34.0
  • Contacted = 31.8
• Response bias factors(Loftus and palmer)


  different speed estimates occur because the critical word influences or biases a person’s response.
• The memory representation is altered(Loftus and Palmer)

  • critical verb changes a person’s perception of the accident - some critical words would lead someone to have a perception of the accident being more serious.
  • This perception is then stored in the person’s memory of the event.
• Study(Loftus and Palmer) (Experiment 2)

  Aim: to see if leading questions simply create a response bias or if they actually alter a person’s memory representation
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(Experiment 2)

  METHOD:

  Lab experiment-using independent measures

  IV- Verb of critical Question

  DV- speed estimate and whether or not broken glass was seen.

  Longitudinal-lasted for 1 week(enduring memory)

  SAMPLE:150 American students

  -1 minute film which contained a four-second multiple car accident and questionnaire was used in both parts of the experiment
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(Experiment 2)

  PROCEDURE 1 :

  asked to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about the accident including the critical question about speed.

  3 groups of participants:

  Group 1: key words='smashed'

  Group 2: key word='hit'

  Group 3:no questions about speed. This was a control group.
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(Experiment 2)

  PROCEDURE 2:

  ONE week later-participants asked to return to the psychology lab

  Asked further Questions(did u see any broken glass) there was 10 questions

  There was no broken glass in the clip(those who thought the car was travelling faster might expect there to be broken glass.)
• Study(Loftus and Palmer)(experiment 2)

  RESULTS:

  There was a significant difference in the speed estimates in the SMASHED condition (10.46 mph) and in the HIT condition (8 mph), supporting findings of experiment 1

  participants in smashed were more likely to report seeing broken glass

  CONCLUSION: use of language after the event can change our actual memory of the event itself.-cuz information at retrieval(language) and input(event) have been MERGED within the schema over time making it hard to establish a difference
• Limitations(Loftus and Palmer)

  1. low ecological validity-watched VIDEOS of the car accidents which is completely different from witnessing it in real life. Real accidents involve more panic/stress and shock which can effect memory encoding and retrieval differently then watching a video in a controlled environment(therefore the participants would feel safe and feel little emotional engagement as they were in artificial setting)
• Limitations(Loftus and Palmer)

  2. lack of generalizability -the study mainly involved students which limits the findings oh how well it applies to wider population. Students tend to be younger and therefore their memory may differ from children and adults making it difficult to generalize to different age groups/students are more educated and are more likely to pick up on cues(demand characteristics)
• Limitations (Loftus and Palmer)

  3. Ethical Concerns -deception as the participants were not informed on the true aim (though they were just participating in a study about memory-but actual it was about leading questions)ethically participants should be fully informed and know the true purpose of the study
• Strengths(Loftus and Palmer)

  1. Reliable-it used standardized procedures(easier to replicate)(e.g. everyone watched the clip about car accidents)and therefore everyone was exposed to the same visual stimuli and the difference in answers wasn't based on watching different accidents. Participants also were asked the same question just with a different variable(therefore any difference was due to the variable and nothing else)
• Strengths(Loftus and Palmer)

  2. High control -Lab experiment therefore meaning that the study was highly controlled allowing the researchers to manipulate the variables(verbs)this makes internal validity higher and allowing the researcher to say that the difference was due to the manipulated variable
• Strength(Loftus and Palmer)

  3. Practical application-used real life application particularly for law enforcement /judicial system/eyewitness testimony as it showed that leading questions can cause distortion in memory. This study has improved interrogation techniques and increased public awareness about reliability of eyewitnesses statements.