Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Classic Evidence (Cognitive) - Mindmap in A Level and IB Psychology

Created by: chlopayne
Created on: 16-04-19 20:28

View mindmap

Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Example of the interaction between language and memory
- Concerned with the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony.
  - Questions by police/official after a crime may alter witnesses’ perception of the events and affect what they recall.
- Methodology
  - Two experiments conducted in a laboratory using an independent group design.
    - Experiment 1: 45 student participants. Experiment 2: 150 student participants.
- Procedures and findings
  - Experiment 1
    - Procedures
      - Five groups, 9 participants in each.
      - 7 clips of traffic accidents, lasting 5-30 seconds.
      - After each clip, they recieved a questionnaire,asked specific questions about the accident.
      - One 'critical' question - "How fast were the cars going when they ____ each other?"
        Each group had a different key word - hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted.
    - Findings
      - The group given the word ‘smashed’ estimated a higher speed.
      - The group given the word ‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed
  - Experiment 2
    - Procedures
      - Three groups, 50 participants in each.
      - Investigated whether leading questions bias a person’s response or alter the memory that is stored.
      - Part 1: Shown a film of multiple car crash. Asked a set of questions, including the critical question about speed.
        Group 1 - ‘How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’ Group 2 - ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ Group 3 - control group. not exposed to questions.
      - Part 2: Return to lab and asked further questions. Critical question was "‘Did you see any broken glass?’
    - Findings
      - Part 1: Participants gave higher speed estimates in the ‘smashed’ condition,
      - Part 2: Participants in the ‘smashed’ condition were more likely to report seeing broken glass.
        Group 1 (smashed) - 16 reported seeing broken glass; Group 2 (hit) - 7 reported seeing broken glass; Group 3 (control) - 6 reported seeing broken glass;.
- Evaluation
  - Methodology and procedures
    - They used experiments, demonstrated causal relationships.
      - Manipulate IV (verb used), measure DV (estimate speed).
      - Laboratory means confounding variables can be controlled.
    - Watching a video of an accident isn't the same as witnessing a real one.
      - May not take it seriously or get the same emotions as real life.
        Foster (1994) - participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery, their identification was more accurate.
        
        Yuille and Cutshall (1986) - greater accuracy in real life. Witnessed an armed robbery in Canada. 4 months later they gave accurate reports.
        Even after being given two misleading questions. Suggesting they have more accuracy in real life.
      - Lacks ecological validity.
    - Sample: US college students. Other groups may be more or less prone to be affected by misleading information.
  - Ethical issues and social implications
    - No valid consent - if participants were aware it may have affected their responses.
    - The issue is whether deception is acceptable. It had effect on our understanding of inaccuracy of EWT.
    - Participants didn't witness a real accident, responses would've been different in real life.
      - Lacking ecological validity.
      - Alternative would be for participants to witness accident but this could have caused psychological harm.
      - This study avoided the issue of psychological harm.
- Conclusion
  - Response bias factors
    - The different speed estimates occur because the critical word influences / biases a person’s response.
  - Memory representation is altered
    - The critical word changes a person’s memory so that their perception of the accident is affected.

Get Revising

Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Classic Evidence (Cognitive)

Comments

Similar Psychology resources: