Loftus and Palmer

• Methodology


  2 experiments-conducted in a lab

  Experiment 1-45 students-5 groups

  Experiment 2-150 students-3 groups

  Independent groups design
• Procedures


  Experiment 1-shown 7 film clips of traffic accidents-5-30 seconds long.

  After each clip pp were asked to make an account of what they had saw and asked questions in a questionnaire.

  Crital question-'About how fast were the cars going when they______into each other?'

  Hit,smashed,collided,bumped,contacted,speeds were recorded in mph
• Procedures


  Experiment 2-investigating whether leading questions cause bias or alter memory.

  Part 1-film of a multiple car crash,less than 4 seconds,they were then asked a series of questions including the critical question.

  Group 1-smashed group 2-hit group 3-control,no question

  Part 2-a week later

  'Did you see any broken glass?'

  None in the film,expected that those who chosen a higher speed my have said there was broken glass
• Findings


  Experiment 1-a mean speed estimate was calculated for each group

  Smashed-40.8

  Collided-39.3

  Bumped-38.1

  Hit-34

  Contacted-31.8
• Findings


  Experiment 2-part 1

  highest estimate to speed was in the smashed condition,twice as likely to respond yes

  smashed hit control

  yes 16 7 6

  no 34 43 44
• Findings


  Experiment 2-Part 2

  those in the smashed condition were more than twice as likely to say they had saw broken glass.
• Conclusions


  found that changing one word can affect a witness answer

  1-response bias factors-different speed estimates occur due to the critical word influencing or bias from someones response

  2-Memory representation is altered-critical word changes memory so perception of accidents is affected,could lead it to being more serious

  Leads to pp remembering details that are false(broken glass)

  Experiment 2-leading questions alter memory,the effect of leading questions in not the result of reponse-bias
• Evaluation-methodology and procedures


  Controlled experiment

  demonstrates a casual relationship.Manipulating the IV to see the effect on the DV to draw a conclusion

  Confounding variables are also controlled for
• Evaluation-Methodology and procedures


  Ecological validity

  not the same as witnessing a real car crash(not a serious or emotionally aroused)-the findings cant represent real life.

  Yuille and Cutshall-witnesses to a robbery in Canada gave accurate reports of the crime 4 months later after being given 2 misleading questions
• Evaluation-Methodology and procedures


  US college students,others could be affected differently by misleading information.

  Eye witnesses acquires information from 2 sources,observing the event and subsequent suggestions.

  Schacter et al-elderly people have difficulty remembering the source of their information but not the information itself,more prone to misleading information
• Evaluation-ethical issues


  Lack of valid consent

  no consent from pp,if they were aware of the aims it would have affected their behaviour.

  They would have been aware of leading questions and answered differently,doesnt reflect EWT in everyday life.

  Argued if the deception is acceptable,a profound effect on understanding of inaccuracy of EWT

  pp not psychologically or physically harmed and unlikely to know the true purpose would have led to refusing to take part
• Evaluation-ethical issues


  Psychological harm

  not a real life accident,so not responded in a way of a real accident.

  exposing pp to a real accident would have caused harm,hard to debrief.Emotional impact,lasting effects
• Evaluation Social implication


  Education

  caution when phrasing questions to students to avoid unintentionally influencing their responses.

  Raises awareness of the importance of correct questioning techniques
• Evaluation Social implication


  Health

  ensuring witnesses are mentally and emotionally fit to provide testimony is crucial.

  Involve implementing guidelines or rules to assess witnesses well-being and readiness to testify,ensuring that they are not too unwell or emotionally disturbed to provide reliable testimony