Loftus and Palmer E Sheet PDF

Preview

Summary

loftus and palmer e sheet...

Description

Shafaq Amin EVALUTATION SHEET

Study title & Authors: Area/Perspective: Key Theme: Background (note any relevant theory/previous studies that informed this research)

Aim Method (talk about the IV and the DV and the full procedure)

Results (quantitative and qualitative)

Conclusions

Distinguishing Feature (something which makes it unique)

This study is Loftus and Palmer on Cognitive Psychology.

Memory is the capacity for storing and retrieving information. Some people have better memory than others for various reasons. However, memory isn’t perfect. There are a lot of individual factors that can affect our overall memory. The key theme is ‘memory’. Loftus and Palmer link to the key theme as they show how memory can easily be constructed. The verb used in a question can change their memory. We find out that memory isn’t always accurate or perfect. Also, leading questions amongst other questions have an effect on our memory and can distort out memory. Juries are very convinced by eyewitness testimony and will tend to return guilty verdicts, when there has been an eyewitness account presented by the prosecution. Psychological research into memory, strongly suggests that there are many factors, which make eyewitness testimony unreliable. One factor that might affect memory is previous experience and the way that this leads us to develop expectations. Some people imagine situations based on previous experience and when asked questions, they will muddle everything up, based on what they saw and what their expectation of the scene would be. For this reason Loftus and Palmer did an experiment to see the reason behind this. The overall aim for the study that Loftus and Palmer carried out was to investigate whether changing the phrasing of questions about a car crash altered participant’s memory and speed estimates of an event. Once they did the first experiment, they summed up all the results and came down to the conclusions of whether the estimates found in experiment 1 was due to distortion of memory. To check this, a second experiment was conducted. A second experiment was conducted to see whether the The first experiment that was carried out by Loftus and different speed estimates in experiment one were due to a Palmer consisted of 45 students. There was no detail of result of distortion. Loftus and Palmer did they by seeing both and gender. The study took place in a lab using independent measure. The independent variable for this whether participants who heard more severe verbs in the question would be more likely to incorrectly remember experiment was using different verbs in the critical seeing broken glass at the crash site. This experiment question. And the dependent variable was the speed consisted of 150 students. The independent variable was estimates at which the car was travelling. The students the different verbs used, ‘hit’, ‘smashed’ or ‘control’. Again, who took part in the experiment were showed 7 car like the first experiment, this also took place in a lab and crash videos, which were used by the police was independent measures design. All 150 participants department. For four of these seven videos, the speed watched a car crash which lasted less than one minute in of which the car was travelling at was known because which the car crash itself lasted about 4 seconds. After they were used for training purposes. These were watching the video, they were all asked to describe in their 20mph, 30mph, 40mph and 40mph. once everyone had own words what they had just seen and then answer some watched all seven videos, they were asked to write an questions. Just like the first experiment there was a critical account of the accident they had just watched and then question. The first 50 people received the question: ‘About answer several questions. There was questions related how fast were the cars going when they SMASHED into to the car crashes they had just seen but there was one each other?’ and another 50 participants were asked the critical question which was, ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ Each person got a question, ‘About how fast were the cars going when they different verb in this question. The 5 verbs were: ‘bump’, HIT each other?’ The control group received question that did not ask about the speed estimates. A week later these ‘hit’, ‘contacted’, ‘smashed’ and ‘collided’. They wanted 150 participants were called back and were asked 10 to see whether by changing the verb in the question questions. The critical question among these was, ‘Did made a difference to the speed estimates that the you see any broken glass?’ participants would predict. Just like experiment one, people who heard the verb, The results received from the study were quantitative. ‘smashed’ had a higher speed estimate of 10.46 mph, This is a good thing because it allows the results to be compared to those who got the verb, ‘hit’ where the speed represented on graphs and charts and also allows them estimate was 8.0 mph. People who got the verb smashed to be compared with other studies and findings. Loftus recalled seeing glass than those who had the verb hit or and Palmer found out after conducting experiment one had no question to do with speed estimates at all. 16/50 is that the estimate speed at which the cars were students with the verb ‘smashed’ recalled seeing broken travelling was not affected by the actual speed of the car. However, the verb used in the question, had a slight glass whereas, 34/50 students did not recall seeing broken glass. impact on the estimate speed. The verb ‘smashed’ had the highest speed estimate at 40.5% where as the verb ‘contacted’ had a much lower speed estimate at 31.8%. Loftus and Palmer realized that the speed estimates at which the car was travelling was different compared to when there was a very used to describe the car crash. They concluded that there was two possibilities for this which were: 1. Response Bias – the participants were unclear on what to estimate so the verb gave them a clue on what to say. 2. Memory Distortion – the verb used in the question alters a participant’s memory of the car crash that they saw. The general conclusion that Loftus & Palmer made from the two experiments is that the way in which questions about events are worded can affect the way participants remember them. Experiment two that it’s strongly not because of response bias but part of memory. Hence; the wording of questions can actually distort someone’s memory. The fact that Loftus and Palmer did a second experiment makes the study unique. This is because they wanted to get more accurate results and find out whether it was response bias that affected peoples memory or was it memory distortion. After conducting a second experiment, they got more valid and reliable results, which can be used to explain why memory isn’t perfect and what it actually is that affects, and reconstructs, our memory. Even though we say our memory is like a computer, in some way we can argue that it isn’t. This is because a computer doesn’t change its information once something else is inputted into it. Whereas, the human brain and its memory can be changed and altered when something is inputted into the memory and this can alter the output and retrieval overall information.

Shafaq Amin EVALUTATION SHEET

Methodological Evaluation Issues Internal Validity: (talk about demand characteristic, social desirability, extraneous variables, controlled or uncontrolled?)

Ecological Validity (generalize to real life? talk about mundane realism and experimental realism)

Reliability (is the study consistent? can it be replicated? standardisation and controlled?

Types of data used (quantitative or qualitative, strengths and weaknesses)

Population Validity (can it be generalized to other people? strengths and weaknesses)

Any other methodological issues?

The basic definition of internal validity is whether or not the independent variable (IV) has an affect on the dependent variable (DV). If this is the case, and our results show that the independent variable has affected the dependent variable, then we can establish ‘cause and effect’. A cause and effect relation is a relationship in which one event makes another event happen. Loftus and palmer had high internal validity so it was easy to establish that the IV had caused the DV. The main reason for this is because the study took place in a lab, which meant everything was controlled such as any extraneous variables. All the tasks and the procedure was the same for everyone as each participant watched the same video, they all knew the same of 4 of the videos, and all watched the video from a same angle and for the same amount of time. Everyone has a distracter question, which meant that there was less chance of demand characteristics. Therefore we can say the IV did cause the DV. But some may argue that the study of Loftus and Palmer wasn’t internally valid. They argue that there done have been some demand characteristics especially with experiment 2 as participants may have felt that they were supposed to see broken glass and gave the answer that they did. Furthermore, some extraneous variables may not have been controlled such as individual differences. Some people may have had better memories than others and remembered the videos a lot clearer than others. Some participants may have had more driving experience and therefore can estimate the speed at which the car was travelling. And some people may have not even been looking whistle watching the video and gave a random answer. The term ecological validity means whether or not you can generalize the results from a study to real life settings. Loftus and Palmer had low ecological validity for many reasons but to get valid results, the experiment had to be conducted this way. One reason they had low ecological validity is because the experiment took place in a lab. This meant that we couldn’t generalize the results to real life settings, as everyone knew that they were going to watch a video on a car crash and they were prepared for it, whereas in real life a car crash can happen at any time. People are less concentrated in real life seen as though they are not prepared or looking forward to a car crash. Another reason why the study had low ecological validity is due to the fact that real life car crashes are more complex compared to a fake car crash. There is a lot more emotion and consequences when an incident like this happens in real life, as everyone is not relaxed or safe. And for these reasons, we cannot use the findings we have received from the study of Loftus and Palmer because it has low ecological validity. People will act, behave and give very different emotions when they are put in an actual car crash compared to when they are just watching a car crash in a room amongst other people. Seen as the study for Loftus and Palmer was carried on in a lab, it was highly reliable as everything was consistent and very controlled. The procedure was the same for everyone because everyone watched the same video, for the same amount of time. The task and the experiment was the same for everyone and weren’t changed for any one participant. Experiment one was repeated and they found similar results in both experiments. Both the experiments showed that memory of an event can be distorted by information given to one after an event. In experiment one and experiment two there was very similar results for the verb ‘smashed’ and ‘hit’ which suggests that the results are reliable. Overall, we can conclude that both experiments consistently show leading questions can distort the memory on an individual. The main type on data used for this study was quantitative data. Quantitative data is numerical data. The data came from the estimate speed of which the car was travelling at and also, whether participants incorrectly recalled seeing broken glass at the car crash. Using quantitative data is a good thing because it allows us to represent the data we have found and also compare against other finding and/or studies. However, using just quantitative data can be a disadvantage, as it doesn’t allow us to see all aspects of the study. The finding from quantitative data don’t tell us why participants made the decision they made. It only tells use what was it that they said and no reason for the answer they had given for the speed. Population validity is whether or not the findings of your study can be generalized to other people. Loftus and Palmer had low population validity because of the sample they had used which was students. We cannot generalize the finding from this study to real life because the students used in this group are all one occupation; they have the same age and job. Therefore, we cannot generalize the findings from this study to those out there who aren’t students. Another reason why the experiment has low population validity is due to the fact that the students were more likely to be of middle class and white which is not representative at all as older or younger people may have different views and estimates of the car crash. Students aren’t representative because they are less likely to have driving experience and are less likely to be present at a car crash. Therefore, they are less likely to know the speed at which the cars were travelling at so their estimates would have been unreliable and cannot generalize to the general population. Moreover, the students that took part in the study could have been psychology students, which may have been more vulnerable to demand characteristics, as they may have wanted to impress the experimenter. One last reason as to why we cannot generalize the findings from the study to other people is because students are more likely to have cognitive ability and would be cleverer as they go to university. They are more used to taking in information and remembering so they would have a better recall than those who are not students. However, in some way we could generalize the findings from this study to other people as everyone has memory. Memory has universal so the results shouldn’t be affected no matter who you are and where you are from. Loftus and Palmers study can be seen to be ethnocentric in some was as it was an American study. Ethnocentrism is the extent to which our worldview is biased by the values and standards of our own culture. This means that the American culture may have a different way of replying to leading questions than those who are non-American and for this reasons you would receive different results from different types of cultures. On the other hand, we can say the study is not ethnocentric. Seen as thought everyone has memory, cognitive processes such as reconstructive memory should be the same everywhere. Memory shouldn’t be affected no matter where you are or what culture you are.

Shafaq Amin EVALUTATION SHEET

How this study links (the area, concepts and assumptions, they key theme) Memory is the capacity for storing and retrieving information. The key theme is ‘memory’. Loftus and Palmer link to the key theme as they show how memory can easily be constructed. The verb used in a question can change their memory. We find out that memory isn’t always accurate or perfect. Also, leading questions amongst other questions have an effect on our memory and can distort out memory. One assumption of cognitive psychology is that the mind works like a computer. This means that the way a human encodes and retrieves information is similar but not identical to the way a computer encodes and retrieves information. This is seen in the study of Loftus and Palmer as the participants taking part in the experiment are told to watch some videos on car crashes. Then later on, after a week, they are asked a leasing question to which they give an answer. When participants are asked to watch the videos, they are encoding information, which the brain is storing. The leading question is also stored into the brain, however it alters the output information. The output information is the answer to the leading question, ‘Did participants incorrectly seeing broken glass at the car crash?’ the participants who had the verb ‘smashed’, 16 out of 50 people remember seeing broken glass at the car crash. Therefore, Loftus and Palmer are considered to be in the area of cognitive psychology as it links to the key assumption of the mind working similar to a computer as the mind encodes and retrieves information like a computer. But we cannot say that our mind is exactly like a computer because our mind does get reconstructed, which in this case is the leading question. However, with a computer, the information doesn’t change regardless. Another assumption of cognitive psychology is that it explains behavior in terms of how the mind processes information. This means that our memory isn’t perfected and can be alter or reconstructed due to certain things. This is seen in the study of Loftus and Palmer as after the participants watch the videos, they are asked a several questions. A week later they are asked a critical question which was, ‘Was there any glass present at the car crash?’ The question was a leading question, which altered the memory of an individual after an event. 50 of the participants had the verb ‘smashed’ in their question, 50 of the participants had the word ‘hit’ and there was a ‘control group’ so they could compare. The results from experiment two show how our memory isn’t always right and how participants remember seeing broken glass due to a leading question. Overall, Loftus and Palmer link to the key assumption and is considered to be in the area of cognitive psychology as the study shows how memory isn’t perfect.

Debates (any guidelines broken, reasons and justification and overall) Just like any other study, Loftus and Palmer had reasons for being unethical throughout their study. To get the most valid ad reliable results, Loftus and Palmer had to lie to their participants. One ethical guideline that was broken was ‘deception’. All participants who took part got told the aim of the study, which was to watch several videos on car, crashes then answer some questions. But no one got told that there would be a leading question that would have an affect on people’s memory. The reason why everyone was deceived was to get the most valid and reliable results. If everyone were told the real aim of the study, Loftus and Palmer would have gained results that wouldn’t really benefit anyone. Therefore, deception was important to improve and understand inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony. Another guideline that was broken was ‘informed consent’. Loftus and Palmer didn’t actually get informed consent of the participants and the reason why they didn’t do this was to reduce the chance of demand characteristics. If everyone had known that there was a critical question that would have an affect on their memory, everyone would have gave different answers and again unreliable and invalid results would have been gained from the study. A further guideline that was broken in some way was the principal of responsibility which broken the guideline of ‘Protection of Participants.’ Some of the clips may have had an affect on some volunteers as they might have experienced a car crash and this could have altered the overall results.

Usefulness (what do we know now that we didn’t know before? has the study told us anything new or not?) There are many factors that increase the usefulness of the study that Loftus and Palmer carried out, however there are also factors that decrease the usefulness of the study. Strength of conducting useful research in psychology is that it has many useful applications in the real life. This benefits people as it helps us to understand everything a lot better than we already do and we can use the information and help people in society. Loftus and Palmers study is useful because it demonstrates that leading questions can distort out memory. Many people were asked a leading question about whether or not they say broken glass at that car crash and it altered their memory of what they saw during the car crash video. Thi...