Loftus and Palmer (1974)

• What is Schema Theory?

  Mental representations of what usually happens in different situations based on our past experiences
• Reconstructive memory


  Memory isn't an exact replication of what happened, our mind reconstructs an event in our mind.
• What is the background of the study?

  • Believed memory is made up of 3 stages:

  1. Encoding - Transforming info into a form that can be stored in memory
  2. Storing - Maintaining the encoded info in memory
  3. Retrieving - Re-accessing info from the past which has been encoded and stored
• What was the aim?

  To investigate the effect of language (in particular leading questions) on memory
• Who was the sample for Experiment 1?

  -45 students for washington state university
• What was the DV OF EXP1?


  The estimate speech (mph)
• What was the IV of EXP1?


  The 5 verbs used:

  
  

  -Smashed

  -Bumped

  -Collided

  -Hit

  -contacted
• What was the procedure for EXP1?

  -participants watched staged car crash video clips recorded by the Evergreen Safety Council of Seattle Police Department

  -Given a questionanire after which included several smokescreen questions to disguise the aim and critical question -> first few questions asked what'd been seen in the video

  -Critical question -> 'About how fast were the cars going when they __________ each other?' -> 5 critical verbs -> smashed, bumped, collided, hit, contacted

  
  

  -2 films = 40mph, 1 = 20mph, 1= 30mph
• What verbs had the highest and slowest speed estimate?

  Smashed -> 40.8

  Contacted -> 31.8
• What conclusions were drawn from EXP1?

  -Verb convey an impression of the speed the car was travelling at, altering the participants perception

  -People are generally not very good at estimating the speed vehicles are travelling at

  -The language used in the question did affect participants memory of what was seen
• What was the sample for EXP2?

  150 participants

  3 groups = 50 pg
• What was stage 1 of EXP2 procedure?

  -Participants shown one minute film of car driving through countryside follow by 4 seconds of multiple traffic accident.

  -Students were questioned about the film after through a questionnaire -> asked to describe accident in own words then specific questions about accident

  -50 students asked 'how fast were the cars going when they hit each other" : 50 students asked "how fast were they going when they smashed each other?" : last group not asked question since they're control group
• What was stage 2 of EXP2 procedure?

  -Without rewatching the film, they were given a questionnaire with 10 questions, with one being a randomly placed critical question 'Did you see any broken glass?YesNo'

  -There was NO broken glass
• What was the IV for EXP2?

  The 3 conditions:

  -1 group = Smashed

  -1 group = Hit

  -1 group = control group, not asked about speed
• What were the RESULTS for the number of broken glass found in EXP2?

  Amount of people who remembered seeing broken glass:

  
  

  Smashed - 16/50

  Hit - 7/50

  Control group - 6/50
• What the conclusions from EXP2?

  -Questions asked after an event caun cause reconstruction of somebody's memory of the event.

  -Verb used in question can affect speed a witness estimates a vehicle to be travelling at and also whether they recall having seen any broken glass.
• What ethical guidelines were upheld?

  -Protection from harm -> Clips don't contain gruesome images

  -Confidentiality -> Kept personal info private

  -Debrief -> Given at the end of procedure explaining what the purpose of the study was
• What ethical guidelines were broken?

  -Deception = Weren't told about leading questions -> exact hypothesis hidden

  -Protection from harm = Emotional harm can be caused if they were in a crash before

  -Unlikely to withdraw during procedure
• Was the study ethnocentric?


  No - Studying whole human cognitive process

  Yes - Only studied university-educated people (students)

  Yes - Students mainly upper and middle class (pop valid as well)
• Was the procedure standardised and replicable? (Internal reliability)

  Yes - Highly controlled lab exp -> same video clips and questions
• Was the sample large enough to show a consistent effect? (Exteneral reliability)

  Study 1:

  
  

  No - 9 participants in each group, can skew data

  
  

  Study 2:

  
  

  Yes - 50 people per group - findings can show consistent trend in those who saw broken glass
• Did the researchers control for extraneous variables? (Internal validity)

  -Highly controlled lab exp - no outside influence

  -Knew they were in a study -> may of influenced how they acted and what they focused on but there were smokescreen questions so difficult to figure out aim of study
• Is the sample diverse enough to be representative? (External validity -> pop validity)


  No -> only students -> diverse enough to represent general population
• How did/didn't the experiment resemble real-life situations? (Ecological validity)

  -Staged crashes -> Reduces EL of exp -> less emotional impact on those watching crash

  -Fully focused on the clip, might not be if accident occurred in real life