Loftus & Palmer (1974) - Aim: - To see the effect of leading questions on Eye Witness Testimony.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Reconstruction of Automobile destruction
Advertisements

Loftus and Palmer Leading Questions.
Memory. Watch this clip and answer the following questions qaLrc4.
PYA1: Critical Issue Eye Witness Testimony EWT. Eye Witness Testimony EWT The statements provided by witnesses of a crime or situation which help to establish.
BIG 12 - Powerpoint #1 Loftus & Palmer 1974; Bartlett 1932.
Evaluating Loftus (1979) ‘The weapon effect’
LOFTUS & PALMER (1974) Starter: Here is an introduction to Loftus & Palmer (1974)…what information is missing…  Loftus carried out an experiment where.
Cognitive Approach AS Level Psychology The core studies.
Eye Witness Testimony Objectives 1.Be able to appreciate the importance of memory research 2.Be able to describe the key study 3.Be able to evaluate the.
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Loftus and Palmer Evaluation Cognitive Core Study.
By Dhina, Haneen, Viveka, and Natsuki Elizabeth Loftus.
Eye-witness testimony
LOFTUS AND PALMER CORE STUDY SLIDES Get out your APFC.
Thanks for the Memories! Gabby Feltner and Caroline Vierod.
Readings 25 & 26. Reading 25: Classic Memory and the eye-witness Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Conclusion Reading 26: Contemporary Misinformation Effect Memory.
EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY. WHAT IS EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY? Question – write your answer on your mini-whiteboards – What is an Eyewitness Testimony? AQA Definition:
Memory and the power of suggestion
Eyewitness Testimony Reconstructive memory Reconstructive memory Schema driven errors Schema driven errors Effect of leading questions Effect of leading.
Contents Cognitive Psychology What is Cognitive Psychology? Assumptions Methods of Investigation Core Studies from Cognitive Psychology - Loftus and Palmer.
Encoding Specificity Memory is improved when information available at encoding is also available at retrieval.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime.
Reliability of one cognitive process
Special Topics in Memory Psychology, Unit 5 Today’s Objectives 1. Apply autobiographical memory to your life 2. Describe the explanations for childhood.
AS Level Psychology The core studies Cognitive Approach.
AREA OF STUDY 2 MEMORY UNIT 3 THE CONSCIOUS SELF.
Question Wording and Eyewitness Testimony © POSbase 2005 The study of Loftus & Palmer (1974):Loftus & Palmer (1974): Participants viewed films about a.
Retrieving & Forgetting Memories. Memory Construction Leveling: Simplifying material, shortening Sharpening: Highlighting or overemphasizing some details.
Memorise these words, you have until I have finished reading them out. sournicecandy honeysugarsoda bitterchocolategood hearttastecake toothtartpie.
Loftus And Palmer The Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction.
Factors affecting eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony Eye witnesses who have ‘seen with their own eyes’ tend to be believed more by juries than.
Memory Eyewitness Testimony. Learning objectives Understand what is meant by eyewitness testimony (EWT) Be aware of some of the factors that affect the.
MEMORY IN EVERYDAY LIFE MEMORY IN EVERYDAY LIFE Factors Affecting EWT Anxiety.
Eyewitness Testimony Elizabeth Loftus.
AS Level Psychology The core studies
Evaluate, including the relative strengths and weaknesses, of Field experiments including their use in criminological psychology with regard to : Evaluate,
Loftus & Palmer Cognitive Psychology The Core Studies.
You’re the psychologist You can pick either L&P, Pickel or Yarmey. You must be then and answer questions from the rest of the group for 3 minutes. Rest.
Eyewitness Testimony Violence and Recall Loftus & Burns: showed participants a filmed bank robbery. One version shots were fired but no one was hurt.
Read the following; ‘When the man entered the kitchen, he slipped on a wet spot and dropped the delicate glass pitcher on the floor. The pitcher was very.
About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? collided smashed bumped contacted.
Research methods Designing an experiment Lesson 5.
Loftus and Palmer (1974).  Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory  Field of psychology:
Reliability in Memory.  In 1984 Jennifer Thompson, a 22-year-old college student was raped at knifepoint. She testified that during the crime she made.
Memory Bingo! HypothesisIndependent variable Dependent variable Weapon focusDecaySensory store CapacityEncodingPeterson and Peterson LoftusCentral ExecutivePhonological.
CLOA: Cultural Factors in Cognition. Difference between Social and Cultural Social A factor which you are born without but not necessarily into Cultural.
Eyewitness Testimony Reliability in Memory.
Discussion Loftus and Palmer suggest 2 explanations for the results of Experiment 1: Response Bias: The different speed estimates occurred because the.
Loftus and Palmer Study one Study two Aim Reconstructive memory is….
MEMORY FALLIBLITY OF MEMORY.
Multiple choice questions
Loftus and Palmer (1974) (A2) Reconstruction of automobile destruction and example of the interaction between language and memory.
4.3 Classic Evidence: Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Presentation by Jordan Cline, Sarah Swift, and Anita Bainbridge
RECAP what’s the difference between state-dependent forgetting and context dependent forgetting? Outline the research to support context-dependent forgetting.
Reliability of Memory Ms. Carmelitano.
Starter: how good is your memory?
Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer
PSYA1: Cognitive Psychology Memory
4.3 Classic Evidence: Loftus and Palmer (1974)
A case study of eyewitness memory of a real crime.
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
what have we learned from past two lessons?
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction
Sour Nice Candy Honey Pie Toffee Taste Cake Tooth Tart Sugar Pop
L.O: Misleading information leading questions post-event discussion.
The cognitive area.
Reconstructive memory.
The effect of Anxiety on Eyewitness Testimony
Presentation transcript:

Loftus & Palmer (1974) - Aim: - To see the effect of leading questions on Eye Witness Testimony

Procedure A laboratory experiment. Three groups of students, after watching a film of a car crash were asked questions (an independent measures design): - The first group were asked – “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” For the other group the words: - smashed into each other were substituted. A control group were not asked about speed. A week later they were re-interviewed and asked: - “Did you see any broken glass?”

Results The smashed group’s average estimated speed was 41mph The hit group’s average estimated speed was 34mph Although there was no broken glass at the scene 32% of the participants who heard the word smashed said there was, compared to only 14% of the hit group and only 12% of the control group.

Conclusion These words have very different connotations regarding speed and force of impact. The word smashed tends to imply broken glass and it is feasible to expect broken glass at a car accident. The participants had unconsciously incorporated these connotations into their memory of the event and it had affected their judgement of speed and memory of the scene.

Evaluation StrengthsWeaknesses Classic Study Controlled Experiment Real Life implications for EWT Reliability Lacks Ecological Validity (Not real Life) Demand Characteristics Ethics – some Ps may have found the experience distressing Loftus’s Ps were students and therefore may not be a representative sample