AO3

• Loftus & Palmer's research has questionable ecological validity. On the one hand, questioning participants about everyday events like a car crash appears to be a genuine measure of eyewitness testimony.
• has questionable ecological validity. On the one hand, questioning participants about everyday events like a car crash appears to be a genuine measure of eyewitness testimony. However, the participants watched a video of a car crash and witnessed the events unfold from start to finish. In everyday reports of car accidents, witnesses rarely see the whole event; they are either involved in the event directly, or see a small part of the event happen in their peripheral vision. Therefore, their results do not reflect everyday car accidents
• A second weakness of Loftus & Palmer's research is that their study lacks population validity. Their two experiments consisted of 45 and 150 students from the University of Washington. It is reasonable to argue that the students in their experiment were less experienced drivers, who may be less accurate at estimating speeds. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example, older and more experienced drivers, who may be more accurate in their judgement of speeds and therefore not as susceptible to leading questions.
• However, Loftus & Palmer's research took place in a university laboratory and was therefore highly controlled. This high degree of control reduces the chance of extraneous variables, increasing the validity of the results. Furthermore, it is easy for psychologists to replicate their research, to see if the same results are achieved with a different population.