Loftus And Palmer (1974)

• 𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗞𝗚𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗 - 𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗬

  → capacity to retain & store information

  ↓

  𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆?

  → heightened emotions

  → time passed
• 𝗔𝗜𝗠

  → investigate how information supplied after an event (in the form of a leading question) influences an eyewitness' memory for that event
• 𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗗

  → consists of 2 laboratory experiments

  → independent measures design

  ↓

  𝗜𝗩 → verb used

  𝗗𝗩 ; 1 → participants speed estimate

  2 → whether participant believed they saw glass or not
• 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝟭 ;

  𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗗 / 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗥𝗘

  → 45 students from University of Washington

  → each shown 7 film-clips of traffic accidents

  → were asked to answer some specific questions but the CRITICAL QUESTION was about the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision
• 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝟭 ;

  𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗗 / 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗥𝗘

  5 conditions ↴

  𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟭 - 'About how fast were the cars going when they 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 into each other?'

  𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟮 - 'About how fast were the cars going when they 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙙 into each other?'

  𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟯 - 'About how fast were the cars going when they 𝙗𝙪𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙙 into each other?'

  𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟰 - 'About how fast were the cars going when they 𝙝𝙞𝙩 into each other?'

  𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝟱 - 'About how fast were the cars going when they 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 into each other?'
• 𝗜𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟭 ,, 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱. 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆.

  → participants were allocated to 1 of 5 conditions

  → only take part in ONE condition

  → conditions were related to manipulations of verb used in critical question

  → smashed ,, collided ,, bumped ,, hit & contacted
• 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

  → 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗧𝗛 - no problems with order effects as each participant takes part in only 1 of the 5 conditions ONCE

  → 𝗪𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦 - participant variables ; age ,, personality ETC
• 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝟏. 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲.

  → 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋 = P's were shown the same 7 film clips of traffic accidents.

  • ensured they were all treated same - procedure had consistency & therefore more reliable

  ↳ wording of critical question was exactly same apart from verb.

  • only verb used in critical question influenced person's memory & not influence of difficult worded questions
• 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟭.

  • Each P was shown 𝟳 clips of road accidents ,, each lasted 𝟱 - 𝟯𝟬 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀. P's had to do a short 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗲 after they had viewed each clip. All of questions for each P were 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 ,, apart from 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 question which concerned 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗱 ,, which vehicles in clip were going. This question was 'Ab how fast were cars going when they ___ each other?'
  • VERBS - hit ,, bumped ,, contacted ,, collided or 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱
  • researchers measured 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 speed given by each P
• 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 - 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟭

  𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗕 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗗 (𝗺𝗽𝗵)

  
  

  SMASHED 40.8

  COLLIDED 39.3

  BUMPED 38.1

  HIT 34.0

  CONTACTED 31.8
• 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 ; 1


  1. 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 by verbal label which's used to characterise intensity of crash.

  • EVIDENCE → the verb '' smashed '' 's used ,, mean estimate of speeds 40.8 whereas with verb '' contacted '' 's mean estimate of speeds 31.8. The verb '' smashed '' 's violent so they may interpret accident differently

  2. 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 ,, adjusts estimate to fit into expectations of questioner

  • smashed speed was higher (thought) than contacted
• 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝟮 ;

  𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗗 / 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗥𝗘

  → wanted to find out if participant's memories really had been distorted // altered by verbal label

  → 150 participants

  → watched one short film ,, 4 sec scene of a multiple car accident ,, questioned ab it

  → 3 conditions

  → IV was manipulated by wording of question
• 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝟮 ;

  𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦


  𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟭 : 𝟱𝟬 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 :

  • How fast were the cars going when they 𝙝𝙞𝙩 each other?

  𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟮 : 𝟱𝟬 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 :

  • How fast were the cars going when they 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 into each other?

  𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟯: 𝟱𝟬 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 :

  • Not questioned about speed of vehicle ,, control group
• 𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 - '' 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀? ''


  → critical question was part of a longer series of questions

  → placed in a random position on each participants question paper

  → DV - whether or not participants said that they had seen broken glass * NO BROKEN GLASS IN CLIPS *
• 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟭 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟮.

  → time passed in E1 was straight away ,, E2 it was a week

  → in E1 ,, sample of 45 students but in E2 ,, sample is 150 students were used
• 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 - 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟮 ;

  𝗧𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝟮 - 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ; '𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀?'

  Response

  ---------

  YES
• 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 - 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝟮 ;

  𝗧𝗮𝗯��𝗲 𝟮 - 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ; '𝗗𝗶�� 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀?'


  ----------------------------------

  Response I 𝗦𝗺𝗮��𝗵𝗲𝗱 I ��𝗶𝘁 I 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 I

  --------- I -----------------------

  YES I 16 I 7 I 6 I

  ----------------------------------

  NO I 34 I 43 I 44 I

  ----------------------------------
• evaluation ; strength ~ 1

  → highly controlled procedure means the experiment is replicable ,, & can therefore the results can be checked for reliability using the test-retest method

  → collection of quantitative data allows comparisons to be made across groups ,, i.e. which verb attained the highlest // lowest speed estimates
• evaluation ; strength ~ 2

  → experiments allow for precise control of variables - purpose of control is to allow experimenter to isolate 1 key variable which has been selected (IV) to observe it's effect on the DV. control's intended to show us control & effect relationships

  • E.G. ,, was able to control age of the participants ,, use of video & location of experiment. all ppts were asked the same questions (critical question had diff words) ,, & position of key question in 2nd was randomised - allows us to conclude that it was the use of leading questions that caused change in speed estimated
• evaluation ; weakness ~ 1

  → experiment lacks ecological validity - experiments carried out by Loftus are artificial in sense that they're different from how people would normally witness events

  • when participants were giving their estimates of speed ,, they didn't have any actual involvement in judgement & hadn't taken part in event. if we witness stuff irl ,, we have some sort of involvement in people or action so events are emotionally arousing - therefore ,, it's difficult to generalise feelings from lab experiment to real life situations
• evaluation ; weakness ~ 2

  → furthur problem with the study was the use of students as participants. student's memories may be very different from those of other people.

  • students are used to remembering lots of information ,, & are usually good at memry tasks compared with other people. also not everyone who witnesses an event in real life would be a student ,, so results can't be generalised to all eyewitnesses