Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
What was loftus & Palmers hypothesis? |
Wanted to test language used in eye witness testimony and if it can alter memory |
|
What was loftus and palmers aim? |
To show that leading questions or phrasing Q's differently can influence eye witness testimony judgments on speed. To see how accurately people remeber details of accidents |
|
Name loftus and palmers experiment name and year |
Car crash experiment - 1974 |
|
Name the previous research to loftus and Palmer? |
Bartlett - memory is not completely accurate and is made from experiences and expectations = reconstructed memory |
|
Explain bartletts study (loftus and Palmer - previous research) ? |
He told participants to recall North American folk tale from native Indian folk - people changed it to to make it shorter, simpler and to fit expectations |
|
Devlin report ? |
Conviction rate was 74% in 3000 cases because of EWT |
|
How did Elizabeth loftus test the reliability of EWT |
Used mock jurors - had to vote guilty/not for fictional shop robbery Final evidence convinced highest nm of guilty verdicts |
|
What research method did loftus and Palmer use? |
Lab experiment |
|
What experimental design was used by loftus and Palmer? |
Independant group design |
|
What conditions were used for the 2 experiments in the loftus and Palmer study? |
1st experiment: 5 conditions each containing 9 participants (5 diff verbs in the same question) |
|
What was the independant variable for the 2 studies for the loftus and Palmer study? |
The wording of the question (verb) |
|
What was the DV for the 2 experiments in the loftus and Palmer study? |
1st: participants estimates speeds 2nd: answer to critical question (about broken glass) |
|
Where was the location of the loftus and Palmer study? |
University of Washington |
|
What was the DV for the 2 experiments in the loftus and Palmer study? |
1st: participants estimates speeds 2nd: answer to critical question (about broken glass) |
|
How many participants were used in the first study loftus and Palmer carried out? |
45 American students |
|
How many participants were used for the second experiment in the loftus and Palmer study |
150 uni students |
|
How were the participants selected for the loftus and Palmer study ? |
Through opportunity sampling |
|
What did the participants have to do in the 1st experiment? |
They were shown 7 clips for 5-30 seconds After each clip, thy were asked to write an account of what they saw Were asked 5 questions - about how fast cars were going when they (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted) each other |
|
What did participants in the 2nd experiment have to do in the loftus and Palmer study? |
Shown a 1 min clip - which had a 4 sec traffic accident 150 split into 3 groups and asked questions 50 - how fast were cars going when they hit each other 50 - how fast cars were going when they smashed into each other 50 - weren't asked about speed Week later = did you see broken glass (critical question) |
|
Give me a strength and weakness for the method used in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ? |
S: Exp 1: presented films in in a random order - so no order effects (boredom and tired) W: only obtained quantitative data - doesn't say why people behaved like they did |
|
Give me a strength and weakness for the reliability in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ? |
S: standardised procedure - replicable W: demand characteristics (guess aims/ look for clues) |
|
Give me a strength and weakness for the validity in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ? |
S: controlled - know iv affected the dv W: low ecological validity - lack mundane realism ( vid of crash, not real life) |
|
Give me a strength and weakness for the sample in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ? |
S: 2nd experiment - 150 students (large enough to generalise) W: 1st experiment: lack population validity - (45 students) - less experienced drivers, so less confident to estimate speed |
|
Give me a strength and weakness for the validity in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ? |
S: controlled - know iv affected the dv W: low ecological validity - lack mundane realism ( vid of crash, not real life) |
|
Give me a strength and weakness for the ethics in loftus and palmers experiment (evaluation) ? |
S: protection of ppts - not witnessing in real life, only film. Informed consent and debrief W: deception - asked about broken glass = believed into thinking there was broken glas |
|
What were the results of the first experiment of loftus and Palmer? |
Of the 5 verbs used Smashed = 40.8mph Collided = 31.8mph |
|
What reasons did loftus and Palmer give for the average speed estimates of smashed being the highest? |
Response bias factors - participants were unsure and adjusted to fit expectations of experimenter, distortion in memory, intense verbalisation |
|
What conclusion did l&P draw from the first experiment? |
That 2 kinds of information enter a persons memory of a compex event - info perceiving event and other info supplied after the event |
|
What reasons did loftus and Palmer give for the average speed estimates of smashed being the highest? |
Response bias factors - participants were unsure and adjusted to fit expectations of experimenter, distortion in memory, intense verbalisation |
|
What were the results from the second experiment? |
Smashed = 2x as likely to see broken glass (16/50 said yes) Controlled group = 6/50 saying yes |
|
What conclusions did l&P draw from the second experiment? |
Memory is easily distorted by questioning tehniques and info acquired after event - that merge with original memory (reconstructive memory) |
|
Name one piece of evidence that supports l&Ps original research? |
Bartlett - recall and spread Native American folk tale |
|
How did bartletts findings support l&P's research |
Showed memory is innacurate and EWT can be affected by expectations |
|
Critically asses bartletts study? |
Not applicable to real life, l&P research better than lab - better controlled than Bartlett |
|
Name one piece of evidence that contradicts l&Ps original research? |
Bekerian and Bowers - replicated stop signs by loftus et al. Gave slides in original order and doing that recollection was now the same for the consistent and misleading questions |
|
How does bekerian and bowers research contradict l&P's? |
Study suggested that it wasn't the misleading questions that altered perception, but presentation of slides |
|
Critically asses bartletts study? |
Not applicable to real life, l&P research better than lab - better controlled than Bartlett |
|
Critically assess bekerian and bowers study? |
Potential confounding variable - presentation of slides L&p lack internal validity - not representative of real EWT |
|
Name a piece of evidence which supports l&p (not Bartlett) ? |
Loftus and zanni - showed short film clip car accident, asked if seen 'a or the' broken headlight. |
|
Why did loftus and zannis experiment support l&P's research? |
Shows that information provided after an event can affect our recollection of kit |
|
Critically asses loftus and zanni research? |
Low ecological validity - lacked mundane realism because showed clips |
|
Name one piece of evidence which supports l&p ( not Bartlett) ? |
Yuille and cutshall - real life accident, gun sell owner chased robber and robber was killed ( found post event info doesn't affect memory for real life events) |
|
Critically asses Yuille and cutshall' study? |
Unethical - to distort memory of who witnessed crime. Sample size too small - lack pop validity Witnesses who were closer - experienced more stress |
|
Name the studies which support and contradict l&P's? |
Bartlett - support Bekerian and bower - contradict Loftus and zanni - support Yuille and cutshall - support |
|
What was the estimate of speed for the smashed condition? |
40.8mph |
|
What was the estimate of speed for the contacted condition? |
31.8mph |
|
How many participants took part in experiment 1? |
45 |
|
How many participants took part in experiment 2? |
150 |