In order to best understand this study, it is highly recommended that you first read the following books written by Elizabeth Loftus: Eyewitness Testimony The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse What is eyewitness testimony? What theory is the research based on? Sample and Sampling Method Experiment 1 The sample in experiment 1 consisted of 45 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Washington.
Experiment 2 The sample in experiment 2 consisted of undergraduate psychology students from the University of Washington. Procedure Experiment 1 All 45 participants were shown the same seven film clips of different traffic accidents which were originally made as part of a driver safety film. Experiment 2 All participants were shown a one-minute video. Results Experiment 1 The results in this experiment are the speed estimates of the participants after they had watched the video with the car crash and had been asked the critical question with one of the five verbs.
Here are the mean speed estimates for each of the five different verbs: Smashed Participants who saw broken glass: Smashed: 16 Hit: 7 Control: 6 Participants who did not see broken glass: Smashed: 34 Hit: 43 Control: 44 These results are significant, which suggests that the experimenters manipulation did in fact cause the results.
Conclusions There are two kinds of information which contribute to the creation of memories: information gained during an event and information gained after the event.
Memory is not like a tape recorder. Human memory is susceptible to change and decay. Small changes in information can cause distortions in memory. Loftus and Palmer Evaluation — Loftus and Palmer only consider two kinds of information which create memories: information about the event and information after the event.
References Loftus, E. Article Name. Loftus and Palmer - Eyewitness Testimony. Psych Yogi. Evaluate the research methods used in Loftus and Palmers study? Controlled laboratory experiment which fulfilled the scientific criteria of theory, control, evidence and replication. However, experiment lacks ecological validity due to artificial setting.
Evaluate the data collected in Loftus and Palmers study? This study collected and reported quantitative data and this enables results to be easily summarised, an average of the estimated speeds in experiment 1.
Comparison between conditions was easier. What are the ethical issues in Loftus and Palmers study? Slight degree of deception but participants knew it was a test of memory. The experiment was conducted ethically. Assess the validity of research by Loftus and Palmer. A highly controlled laboratory experiment, high design validity. The procedure was standardised: questions, film clips, task. However as the participants know they are in a study this may have affected the outcome of the study.
Assess the ecological validity of research by Loftus and Palmer. Low ecological validity as it is carried out in a controlled artificial setting. Participants were told to remember what they had seen, in a real car crash individuals would not be consciously trying to remember what they have seen.
In a real situation they would be under a lot more stress, the experiment had no emotional connection with the event. Assess the relaibility of research by Loftus and Palmer.
High internal reliability due to standardised procedure, replicated across multiple participants. This experiment has been recreated establishing test-retest reliability. Reliability in the findings as consistent results found that leading questions can distort memory. To what extent can Loftus and Palmers sample be seen as bias? There was no broken glass in the video clip and the participants who were questioned previously using the verb smashed, were significantly more likely to report seeing the broken glass, as a result of the earlier leading question.
The verb smashed has connotation of faster speeds and broken glass and this question led the participants to report seeing something that was not actually present.
Their memory for the original event was distorted by the question used one week earlier, demonstrating the power of leading questions. On the one hand, questioning participants about everyday events like a car crash appears to be a genuine measure of eyewitness testimony. However, the participants in their research watched a video of a car crash and witnessed the events unfold from start to finish. In everyday reports of car accidents, witnesses rarely see the whole event; they are either involved in the event directly, or see a small part of the event happen in their peripheral vision.
Therefore, their results to do reflect everyday car accidents and we are unable to conclude if participants involved in real accidents, who would have a stronger emotional connection to the event, would also be susceptible to leading questions in the same way.
Their two experiments consisted of 45 and American students. It is reasonable to argue that the students in their experiment were less experienced drivers, who may be less accurate at estimating speeds. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example, older and more experience drivers, who may be more accurate in their judgement of speeds and therefore not as susceptible to leading questions.
This high degree of control reduces the chance of extraneous variable, increasing the validity of the results. Furthermore, it is easy for psychologists to replicate their research, to see if the same results are achieved with a different population.
0コメント