loftus and palmer - study

• METHOD

  experiment in lab

  experiment 1 and 2 = independent groups

  both experiments IV = verb

  1 - DV = estimate of speed

  2 - DV = whether participants saw broken glass

  opportunity sampling

  1 = 45 students

  2 = 150 students
• EXPERIMENT 1 - METHOD + PROCEDURE

  7 films of traffic accidents

  'give an account of the accident you've just seen'

  answered specific questions about video = questionnaire

  > critical question = ' how fast were they going when they _'

  1 of 5 verbs > 9 participants = smashed, others were: collided, bumped, hit and contacted

  speed estimate recorded

  no control
• EXPERIMENT 1 - FINDINGS

  smashed = 40.8

  collided = 39.3

  bumped = 38.1

  hit = 34.0

  contacted = 31.8
• EXPERIMENT 2 - METHOD + PROCEDURE

  150 shown one clip of multiple car crash and asked to describe the video and the speed of the car

  50 = how fast when it 'smashed'

  50 = how fast when it 'hit'

  50 = not asked about speed

  1 week later - asked critical question = 'did you see any broken glass'

  no glass in clip
• EXPERIMENT 2 - FINDINGS

  response smashed hit control

  yes 16 7 6

  no 34 43 44
• CONCLUSIONS

  1. response bias factors = different speed estimate because critical word influences response
  2. memory representation = altered because the critical word changes memory, so perception of the accident is affected )e.g. more serious)

  >if true > expect participants to remember false details - tested in experiment 2:

  • findings suggest effect of leading question alters memory for events > not response bias - alters memory
  • smashed condition = leading question and original memory combine to form (new) memory of accident > appears severe and generates certain expectations (e.g. broken glass