1. Loftus & Palmer Cognitive Psychology The Core Studies

2. Background Schemas & Memory How we remember certain things, that memories are stored like a filing cabinet…For example, we know how to behave in a formal situation. Encoding Storage and Retrieval (The memory storing process) Flashbulb Memory How we can remember a certain event exactly e.g. 9/11 Eye-Witness Testimony Witnesses giving evidence of what was saw etc…

3. Aims The general aim of the study was to investigate if the phrasing of questions about a car crash would alter participants’ memory of an event There were also another two aims for the two experiments : Aim 1 : To investigate if different verbs used to describe a car crash would affect participants’ speed estimates of the cars upon impact Aim 2 : To investigate if the speed estimates given in experiment two were because of memory distortion

4. Sample Experiment 1 45 Participants All students (University of Washington) No age or gender details recorded Experiment 2 150 Participants All students (University of Washington) No age or gender details recorded

5. Method Snapshot study Lab Experiment Independent Measures IV’s : The verb in the critical question The wording of the question DV’s : Participant speed estimates Whether participants saw broken glass or not Each participant had to answer a question estimating how fast the cars were going when the accident happened. The question was, ‘About how fast were the cars going when they ----- each other? The verb was one of smashed / collided / hit / bumped / contacted. manipulation

6. Procedure 1 Participants were shown 7 short films of car crashes, all obtained from a local police department. In four of the films, the speed was known (20mph, 30mph, 40mph, 40mph). After watching the films, participants had to answer questionnaires about what they had saw. All questions were filler questions except the critical question : “about how fast were the cars travelling when they ____ each other” The verb used was manipulated so that 9 students would have one verb, 9 would have another etc… Verbs : Smashed, Collided, Hit, Bumped, Contacted

7. Results 1 The mean speed estimate for the verb “Smashed” was 40.5 The mean speed estimate for the verb “Contacted” was 31.8

8. Conclusions 1 Participants’ responses varied according to what verb had been used. This was because of two reasons. Reason 1 Response Bias (The verb gave a clue as to what speed the cars were travelling) Reason 2 Memory Distortion (Participants’ memories were actually changed by the verb)

9. Procedure 2 150 participants were divided into 3 groups of various sizes. Participants were shown a film of a multiple car accident and then given a questionnaire about the accident asking them to firstly describe the accident and then answer a series of questions about the accident which contained a critical question about the speed of the vehicles. 50 participants were asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” 50 participants were asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” A control group of 50 participants were not interrogated about vehicular speed. One week later participants returned and without viewing the film again completed another questionnaire containing 10 questions about the accident, one of which was the critical question “Did you see any broken glass?” Participants responded by checking “Yes” or “No”.

10. STADARDISATION Both of the procedures were standardised. HOW : All participants watched the same film clips All participants were asked the same question (bar critical)

11. Results 2 Yes/NoSmashedHitControl Yes1676 No344344 Participants in the smashed condition gave higher speed estimates than those in the hit condition (10.46:8.00) More participants who had the verb smashed reported seeing broken glass than either participants with the verb hit, or the control group (16:7:6)

12. Conclusions Overall The general conclusion is that the way questions are worded do affect the way we remember events. The results from experiment 2 strongly suggest that this is not due to simply response bias. It seems that post event questions actually become part of the memory for that event, therefore the wording of the questions can actually distort memory. We can also conclude that eye-witness testimony may not be as reliable as hoped, and leading questions may play a big role into why so many innocent people get convicted of crimes they did not commit.

13. Strengths of the study Cause and effect is established. The specific verb did cause a specific memory The study is very ethical Quantitative data was collected (EX 1 : the speed estimates for the 5 verbs, the accuracy of speed estimates for the 4 staged crashes. EX 2 : The mean estimate of speed for participants given the verb smashed or hit, the number of YES/NO responses to the critical question “did you see any broken glass”) therefore can be statistically analysed and groups can be meaningfully compared

14. Weaknesses of the study All of the participants are students and therefore results collected are not generalizable to the wider population The study was done in America and so can be seen as ethnocentric The study lacks ecological validity due to it being very artificial. It doesn’t broadcast emotions, smells, feelings, sounds as well as it would as a real life car crash and therefore isn’t enough to represent to real life. Real car-crashes can cause triggers which means events are easier to remember than videos Speed estimates given might not be representative or accurate enough because the students may not have had cars

15. Evaluation of the sample Strengths Only small amounts so details collected can be more looked into and groups could be allocated easily Students are used to remembering information and so could have been a reliable source Weaknesses Not generalizable enough Students are less likely to drive and so may be less confident with speed estimates

16. Evaluation of method Strengths It collected quantitative data which means it could be statistically analysed and groups could be meaningfully compared together Loftus had high control over extraneous variables meaning reliability is higher and with higher control, we can establish that it was just the IV that affected the DV Weaknesses Very low ecological validity The use of students can be seen as unrepresentative

17. Changes to the study Ecological Validity In the original study, E.V is very low and therefore means that results and conclusions are not representative to real life situations. Researchers could stage a real life car-crash and make police interrogate witnesses, in order to asses participants speed estimates and broken glass. By doing this, we could gain representative results, increasing ecological validity Generalizability In the original study, all of the participants are students which means that the results collected are not generalizable to the entire population. The experiment could take place in a public area with people varying in occupations.

18. Effects of the changes By increasing ecological validity, and making a real life car-crash, a major advantage of this is that results will be much more realistic and representative of real life situations and what eye- witness testimony is really like. However a huge problem with carrying out a real car-crash is ethical issues. For example it may cause psychological harm for the witnesses such as distress and grief of seeing the crash. If more participants were included this would mean that results would be much more generalizable to the wider population. However a large problem with doing this is that it may take a much longer time to actually make sure there is enough witnesses and enough data to be collected.