6. What was the critical question within the questionnaire?
How many people were present at the time of the incident?
About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
What was the colour of the car?
How many cars were involved?
7. Which verb used gave the lowest mean estimate?
Hit
Bumped
Contacted
Collided
8. How many of the films used were staged?
2
6
4
7
9. Why was the gathering of quantative data from the estimates of speed a strength?
It meant that they could enter it straight onto the computer with ease rather than having to type each statement made within the questionnaires
It meant that they didn't have to interpret all of the data in a subjective way meaning their study had increased objectivity
They were able to gather reliable subjective data that would be able to be analysed in a biased way
They didn't have to look at it through a magnifying glass to read the pp's messy handwriting
10. What did they conclude from this second experiment?
That even after a week the phrasing of a question can still affect the answer given, through recostructive memory and poor questionning techique
That broken glass was not a good device in terms of leading on the pps.
That the pps had bad memories
That even a week later when the pps could have thought about their response, they sitll answered incorrectly
11. Which two words from the first experiment were chosen for the leading questions within the questionnaire?
Bumped and Hit
Smashed and Hit
Smashed and Contacted
Bumped and Collided
12. In the second experiment, how many pps were used?
150
200
354
125
13. Their use of a laboratory setting was a strength because...
It meant that they were able to obtain ecological validity
They had clear controls such as all pps being asked identical questions. Their controls and documentation of the procedure meant that it was easy to replicate.
They could be unethical and justify it for scientific research
They were demand characteristics which is what they had initially stated they were looking for within their hypothesis at the start of their study.
14. What was the aim of their study?
To see whether altering the phrasing of a question would affect the pp's estimates of speed
To look at the effect of both males and females in their participation in a field experiment looking at eye witness recall and photo identification
To see if femaes with schizophrenia experience a less severe course than males
To see whether interviews were effective in gathering data from an eye witness
15. Which of these words was not used within one of the leading questions?
collided
smashed
crushed
bumped
16. Which leading question was used within the second experiment?
Did you see any broken glass?
Which window of the car was smashed?
What colour was the quarter panel of the car that got hit?
How much broken glass was all over the floor?
17. What did the pps have to provide after watching the film?
Blood test
A narrative inspired by it
An account of what happened as if they were an actual eye witness
A urine sample
18. What was the independent variable?
The wording of the question
How many pps they used
The film they showed
The speed the pp suggested
19. How many participants were used in experiment one?
65
45
70
20
20. Why might the students chosen to partcipate in the study be weakness
They may not have been drivers themselves and so their estimate may not have been informed and so are likely to to be representative of many others within this circumstance
They're young and so are naive and may not know what to say
They can't read or write properly and so the answers given arent likey to have been legible forcing the researchers to make up the results
They may not have fully grasped the concept of this experiment and so may have wanted to sabotage it
