evaluating Loftus and Palmer

• 1. Alternative Evidence
• 1a. strength is that the results are supported by evidence from previous evidence
• 1a. findings can be seen to support those of Fillmore as they demonstrated that smashed leads to a higher estimated speed than the word hit, words are perceived differently
• 1a. Filmore found that people perceive words differently and word hit is perceived as gentler than smashed
• 1a. supporting evidence suggests that results of study are valid
• 1b. limitation is that the findings are contradicted by evidence based on real life events
• 1b. a study used an interview method based on real-life events, whereas Loftus and Palmer used a laboratory experiment based on watching video clips
• 1b. a study found that witnesses to a real armed robbery in canada were not influenced by leading questions
• 1b. ecological validity is higher in the other study, this suggests the findings of Loftus and Palmer do not prove that eyewitness testimonies are unreliable
• 2. methodology and procedures
• 2a. strength is that it is controlled experiment
• 2a. use of control group can be seen as strength as it allows confounding variables to be controlled
• 2a. casual relationships can be established, means we can conclude that it was the IV causing the effect on DV
• 2a. gives reliable results because they could then fully measure impact of words smashed and hit in relation to those who were not exposed to either independent variable
• 2b. limitation is the lack of ecological validity
• 2b. sample watched video clips of accident which is not same as witnessing it real life. response is not compared to real situation, no consequences
• 2b. a study assessed the accuracy of EWT to a real-life armed robbery, found witness statements were accurate 4 months after event despite exposed to misleading questions
• 3. ethical issues and social implications
• 3a. Limitation is Lack of Valid Consent
• 3a. P’s were deceived about the true aims of the true aims of the study which means their consent cannot be deemed fully valid
• 3a. this can be justified as it may have led to demand characteristics which would not have provided useful insights into EWT
• 3b. Strength is Protection from Psychological Harm
• 3b. can be argued that the use of video clips lacks ecological validity, exposing participants to a real life accident may have cause psychological distress
• 3b. the use of video clips is justified as it protects participants from psychological harm making the study more ethical