investigate effect of questioning on witness memory - disprove its validity
1 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 1 - pps, design, procedure
45 students, lab, independant measures; watched films of car crashes, estimate speed (DV) in questionnaire of fillers, verb altered - hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
2 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 1 - results
smashed had highest speed estimate
3 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 1 - conclusions
verb is fals information and distorts memory
4 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 2 - pps, design, procedure
150 students, lab, independant measures, same as part 1 but returned a week later to do another questionnaire about glass - 50 had hit, 50 had smashed, and 50 werent asked about car speed
5 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 2 - results
more than double incorrectly remembered glass if heard smased
6 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 2 - conclusions
post event qs become past of longterm memory
7 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - validity, data, reliability, ethics
lacks ecological validity; quantitative; controlled and standardised = replicable; unethical for those whove been in car crash;
8 of 22
LOFTUS AND PALMER - representativeness, applications
unrepresentative - white, middle class students who havent driven a lot and are used to taking on info; questioning process is now controlled and improves rate of successful convictions
9 of 22
GRANT - aim
test for context dependant memory effects caused by presence/absence of noise during learning material
read short piece of meaningful material, IV= test conditions, matching/mismatching; tested on recall with short qs, then recognition with multiple choice; wore headphones and were timed whilst reading
12 of 22
GRANT - results
performed better in matching conditions
13 of 22
GRANT - conclusions
should study in silence
14 of 22
GRANT - controls; data; ethics; validity; reliability
headphones and tape reduces EVs, quantitative; ethical; lower validity as not same as studying for hours; standardisation = replicable
15 of 22
GRANT - representativeness; applications
not representative - knew experimenters; context could improve eyewitness testimonies
16 of 22
LOFTUS + PALMER VS GRANT - design, data, replicability
both controlled and independant measures, both quantitative, both standardised
17 of 22
LOFTUS + PALMER VS GRANT - ethics
may be upsetting VS ethical
18 of 22
LOFTUS + PALMER VS GRANT - validity
both controls and realistic material
19 of 22
LOFTUS + PALMER VS GRANT - sample
both unrepresentative - white middle class non driving students VS knew experimenters
20 of 22
LOFTUS + PALMER VS GRANT - applications
both improve rate of successful convictions - leading questions avoid VS context could improve recall
21 of 22
LOFTUS + PALMER VS GRANT - debates (grant)
situational - factors affect exam performance, not just innate ability
22 of 22
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 1 - pps, design, procedure
Back
45 students, lab, independant measures; watched films of car crashes, estimate speed (DV) in questionnaire of fillers, verb altered - hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
Card 3
Front
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 1 - results
Back
Card 4
Front
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 1 - conclusions
Back
Card 5
Front
LOFTUS AND PALMER - part 2 - pps, design, procedure
Comments
No comments have yet been made