30th and 31st March 2010
How to look at each core study
Divided into sections:
1.) Title
2.) Author
3.) Key Words
4.) Aim
5.) Sample
6.) Method
7.) Results
8.) Conclusions
9.) Issues / Implications
TITLE: Reconstruction of automobile destructionLOFTUS & PALMER (1974)
Key Words:
• Memory is prone to CHANGES!
• Eye witness testimony
• Leading Questions
•
Leading Question:
Question that suggests the answer or contains the information the examiner is looking for.
Example of a leading question:
“You were at Duffy's house on the night of July 15, weren't you? “
Example of a NON-LEADING question:
“Where were you on night of July 15?”
LABORATORY EXPERIMENT WITH TWO STUDIES
STUDY 1
AIM
To see the effect of language on our memory
HYPOTHESIS:
No explicit hypothesis.
But by implication, verbs used are expected to produce higher esimate of speed.
Definition of Hypothesis:
A testable prediction about the relationship between at least two events, characteristics, or variables.
VARIABLES:
IV: 5 Verbs used in question
Smashed, hit, collided, contacted and bumped
DV: Estimated Speed of the vehicles
SAMPLE / PARTICIPANTS:
45 students
DESIGN:
Independent Measures Design (RESEARCH MORE!)
• 2 or more separate groups, each containing different individuals, where each participant only takes part in each condition once.
Advantages:
• No order effects because participants are only taking part in one condition.
Participants performing differently because of the order in which the conditions are performed.
• More participants are used therefore increases external validity of the experiment
Disadvantages
• Lacking control over participant variables = Potential of errors occurring from individual differences of participants in each group, affecting the results
METHOD / PROCEDURE:
7 clips of traffic accidents
(Safety clips for driver’s education)
Questionnaires:
‘give an account of the accident you have just seen’.
Specific questions
Critical Question:
“How fast were the cars going when they _ _ _ _ each other”.
45 Participants were divided into 5 Groups/Conditions therefore 9 students per group
Different VERBS were used for each group.
Group 1: How fast were the cars going when they SMASHED each other
Group 2: How fast were the cars going when they COLLIDED each other
Group 3: How fast were the cars going when they BUMPED each other
Group 4: How fast were the cars going when they HIT each other
Group 5: How fast were the cars going when they CONTACTED each other
RESULTS:
Smashed : 40.8 (highest)
Collided: 39.3
Bumped: 38. 1
Hit: 34. 0
Contacted: 31.8 (lowest)
INTERPRETATION:
‘Smashed’ had higher estimates of speed than ‘contacted’.
CONCLUSION:
Leading questions AFFECT recall.
HOW LOFTUS & PALMER EXPLAINED THESE RESULTS:
1.) The verb actually distorts memory
2.) Response bias factors (an example of demand characteristics).
STUDY 2
HYPOTHESIS:
Participants asked about the speed of the cars that ‘smashed’ would be more likely to say they had seen broken glass than participants who were asked about the cars that ‘hit’.
SAMPLE/PARTICIPANTS:
150 students
METHOD / PROCEDURE:
One-minute film (4 seconds of multiple car accidents).
Students divided into 3 groups (50 students per group).
VARIABLES:
IV: verbs used in Question
Smashed / hit
DV: if they saw broken glass
GROUP 1:
‘How fast were the cars going when they HIT each other?”
GROUP 2:
‘How fast were the cars going when they SMASHED each other?’
GROUP 3:
No question (control group).
Definition of Control group
A group that is similar to the experimental group and is expose to the same experimental environment but is NOT exposed to the independent variable; the group is used for comparison
ONE WEEK LATER
Participants were asked further questions (Without viewing videos again).
Critical Question:
‘Did you see any broken glass’.
FYI: No broken glass!
RESULTS:
‘Smashed’ group:
16/50 said YES
34/50 said NO
‘Hit’ group
7/50 said yes
43/50 said no
Control group:
6/50 said yes.
44/50 said no
CONCLUSION:
The word ‘smashed’ sounded MORE SEVERE than ‘hit’ therefore..
The participants in the ‘severe’ group were twice as more likely to report seeing broken glasses.
RECONSTRUCTIVE HYPOTHESIS
Loftus & Palmer suggests two kinds of information go into a person’s memory:
1.) Information obtained from PERCEIVING the event
2.) Information obtained AFTER the event
