describe methodology and procedures of loftus and palmer

• Point (methodology)

  One key aspect of Loftus and PalNed’s (1974) study was its laboratory experimental design, using an independent groups design.
• Evidence (methodology)

  The study was conducted in 2 separate experiments, each with different participants. Experiment 1 involved 45 student participants, while Experiment 2 had 150 student participants
• Explain (methodology)

  The independent groups design ensured that each participant was only exposed to one condition, preventing order effects from influencing the results. This controlled environment allowed for precise manipulation of variables, increasing internal validity, but it also raised concern about ecological validity since real-life accidents may be processed differently
• Link (methodology)

  This highlights how the study was methodologically sound but may not fully represent how memory works in real-world situations
• Point (experiment 1)

  In the first experiment, participants watched 7 short film clips of car accidents, ranging from 5 to 30 seconds in length
• Evidence (experiment 1)

  These clips were originally part of a driver safety film. After watching each clip, participants completed a questionnaire that asked them to recall details of the accident. A key part of this questionnaire was the critical question: “about how fast were the cars going when they _ each other?” The missing verb varied across 5 groups, with words such as “smashed,” “collided,” “bumped,” “hit,” and “contacted.”
• Explain (experiment 1)

  By comparing the speed estimates across different conditions, the researchers could assess how wording influenced memory recall, demonstrating the impact of leading questions
• Link (experiment 1)

  This experiment provided initial evidence that memory can be distorted by the way questions are framed, supporting the idea that eye witness testimony is unreliable
• Point (experiment 2)

  The second experiment aimed to determine whether leading questions altered memory or simply influenced responses
• evidence (experiment 2)

  Participants watched a short film of a multiple car crash, lasting less than 4 seconds. they were then divided into 3 groups of 50. One group was asked about speed using the verb “smashed,” another with “hit,” and a control group was not asked about speed. A week later, all participants returned and were asked a new critical question: “did you see any broken glass?”
• Explain (experiment 2)

  Despite there being no broken glass in the film, those in the “smashed” condition were more likely to report seeing it. This suggests that leading questions can distort memory, supporting the idea that memory is reconstructive rather than a perfect recording of events
• Link (experiment 2)

  This experiment reinforced the findings of experiment 1, showing that misleading information can influence not just estimates of speed but also recall of events that never actually occurred