Loftus & Palmer
- Created by: naomisigsworth
- Created on: 24-04-15 09:06
View mindmap
- Loftus & Palmer
- Aim
- To investigate the effect of leading questions on eye witness's accounts of a car crash.
- To investigate how information supplied after an event affects a witness's memory for that event.
- Background
- Eye witness accounts tend to be very influential in court.
- The Devlin committee in 1973 recommended that juries shouldn't make convictions based on eye witness accounts alone.
- Procedure
- Experiment 2
- Participants watched a one minute film clip which contained a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident.
- Then asked a critical question with three conditions. How fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed each other? 3rd condition not about speed
- A week later, they were asked if they saw broken glass.
- Experiment 1
- They were asked to write a short report after each one.
- 7 5-30 second film clips.
- They then had an interview - 5 conditions. The critical question was: How fast were the cars going when they hit/bumper/smashed/collided/contacted each other?
- Experiment 2
- Participants
- Experiment 1 - 45 student from the University of Washington.
- Experiment 2 - 150 students from the University of Washington
- Results
- Experiment 1 - The cars were going at around 20mph.
- The condition who was asked with 'smashed' estimated the highest speed(34.0).
- The condition who was asked with contacted estimated the lowest speed (31.8).
- Experiment 2 - there was no broken glass.
- 16 people who were asked with 'smashed' said they saw broken glass.
- 7 people who were asked with 'hit' said they saw broken glass.
- 6 people in the control group said they saw broken glass.
- Experiment 1 - The cars were going at around 20mph.
- Conclusions
- There are two types of information that make up the memory of an event.
- Perceiving the event.
- Info given after the event
- There are two types of information that make up the memory of an event.
- Evaluation
- Control was high - so it is reliable. but this makes it lack ecological validity.
- The students were young - their memory might be better than elders. But they also may be less experienced drivers, so their speed estimates aren't generalizable
- Only quantitative data was collected - useful for comparisons and statistical analysis. However, it can be superficial.
- Aim
Comments
No comments have yet been made