Cognitive Psychology - Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Annotations:

• Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction

1. Background
   1. Within courts (keep in mind the time periods) eye witness testimony's are relied on are relied on a great deal. Loftus and Palmer aim to study how out side suggestions can alter ones memory.
   2. Psychologists have identifies many factor that influence the accuracy of our memory and the study considers just on of these factors - The factor that 'The way that we are asked about an event and how the information we receive after the event may affect our memory.
2. Aim/Hypothesis
   1. The aim of this study was to investigate how information that is supplied after an event influences a witnesses recall/memory of the event.
3. Participants/Sample
   1. Opportunistic Sample
      1. Experiment 1 - 45 University students from a psychology class.
      2. Experiment 2 -150 university students from a psychology class.
4. Variables
   1. (DV) Independent Variable

      Annotations:

      • The leading question.
   2. (IV) Dependant Variable

      Annotations:

      • The estimate of the speed given by the participant.
5. Method/Procedure
   1. A Laboratory Experiment and Snapshot method was used.

      Annotations:

      • Snapshot - The opposite to longitudinal. A study that last a short amount of time.
      • Independent Measures Design
   2. Experiment 1
      1. All of the 45 participants watched the 11 clips of car accidents. After every accident clip they were given a questionnaire to fill out which included the leading/critical question.
         1. Leading Question - 'About how fast were the cars going when they ____ (contacted, hit, bumped, collided, smashed) into/with each other.'
   3. Experiment 2
      1. 150 participants watched a one minutes clip full of 4 second clips on car accidents.
         1. The participants were split into 3 groups, those with the verb 'smashed' in their leading question, those with the verb 'hit' as their verb and a control group which had no speed question.

            Annotations:

            • This occurred instantly after watching the one minute clip.
            1. A week later the participants were asked if they saw glass when watching the videos.
6. Conclusion
   1. Loftus and Palmer suggested that there are two types of information that make up the memory.
      1. 1) The information that is perceived during the event.
      2. 2) The information that is offered after the event.
         1. The information that is 'offered' after watching the clips, in this case, would be the questionnaire, which Loftus and Palmer suggested, altered the participants memory.
7. Weaknesses
   1. Snapshot

      Annotations:

      • Snapshot studies tend to be quantitative data which means that the explanation as to why the findings as were they were could not be reasoned/the thoiughts of the participants an not be determined.
   2. Ecological Validity

      Annotations:

      • In being in a laboratory the experiment loses realism and is therefore deemed to have low ecological validity.
      • The clips are viewed in a laboratory style enviroment. In a realistic enviroment (in which the participants were to view a real car accident) the watchers adrenaline will be coursing through their system which could affect the outcome of an actual eyewitness account.
   3. Representivity

      Annotations:

      • Only students partook in this study. Most students are generally unexperienced drivers meaning that the sample cannot be generalised.
      • The participant pool was made up of students who would be inexpeienced drivers compared to the general public.
      • Students are also young, so their capability in storing memories will most likely be greater than the majority of the general public - definitely considering students are used to storing information for their studies.
   4. Demand Characteristics

      Annotations:

      • As it is a laboratory experiment, with a questionnaire, the participants may be giving answers as to what they think the researcher is looking for, causing the results to be less valid. 
      • Considering the participants are Psychology students, there is a higher chance of these demand characteristics coming into play within the study.
   5. Quantitative Data

      Annotations:

      • Without any quantitative data, no indepth reasoning for the results can be made. No reasoning as to why the participants chose their speed, or how confident they were in choosing a speed in which they belived thee cars had crashed at could be made.
      • If a interview had been conducted after the questionnaire, asking how confident the participants were in answering the speed question, a greater insight could have been made within the study.
8. Strengths
   1. Snapshot

      Annotations:

      • The data was collected quickly which means an indication of how the results would pan out would be apparent. This means later research could have been made quickly after this study.
   2. Controls = High Validity

      Annotations:

      • The controls over the variables meant that the validity o0f the study was high. What was being studied was clear and little mistake can be made as to what was being studied. The leading question was the obvious IV and the DV was the estimation given. With the use of quantitative data, clear comparisons could b made as to the cause and effect of the findings.
   3. Quantitative Data

      Annotations:

      • All of the quantitative data makes It easy to draw conclusions, make comparisons and statistical analyse the information.
   4. Reliablility

      Annotations:

      • Whilst their was no test-re-test or split-half method, the masses of numbers showed a clear indictation as the results and is something that can be replicated.
   5. Practical Applications

      Annotations:

      • If leading questions affect the memory of an event than tis study has implications for interviewing witness.
      • For example, police will know not to use leading questions in interviews.
9. Findings

   1. Annotations:

      • When asked if they saw class after the cars had hit eachother.
      • The controlled group had neither verb.
      1. ?

         Annotations:

         • Remember the order of 16, 7, 6 for those who responded with yes.There are 50 participants in each group, take away how many said yes and you have however many said no. Simple way to remember this table.

   2. Annotations:

      • The more 'violent' the word, the higher the speed.
      1. ?

         Annotations:

         • I haven't even tried to remember the whole of this table. Instead, I remember the smashed average spead and the contacted for statistics to compare.
   3. Type of Data
      1. Quantitative

         Annotations:

         • The majority of the data gathered within this study is quantitiative data.
         • The only qualitative data that could be found will be the other questions that were within the questionnaire, but as these were not relevant to the study, there is no qualitative data.
10. How useful is this study?
    1. Despite being an unrepresentative sample, it is possible to extract a number of conclusions from Loftus and Palmers research.
    2. The results of this study shows that in giving an eye witness a leading question, their answer the question may differ to what the actual answer is. The study shows that to get accurate answers out of a eye witness, no leading questions should be asked so that only valid answers will be given.