Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Aim: To study the influence of leading questions – to look at whether leading questions would affect estimates of speed and in a follow up study to see whether recall of an event would be affected by a leading question
Procedure: Experiment 1: 45 participants watched 7 clips of different car accidents and were asked to estimate the speeds. They were then given a questionnaire about the clips which included the critical question –How fast were the cars going when they …. each other’ there were 5 different conditions with 9 pp’s in each . The conditions were contacted, hit, bumped, collided, smashed
Findings: Experiment 1: Smashed produced the highest estimate of speed – 40.8 and contacted the lowest – 31.8. This showed a difference of 9mph based on verb used.
Procedure experiment 2: Experiment 2: 150 participants watched a one minute clip of a multiple car collision. They were asked to describe the film and answer a questionnaire which had a critical question – either how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other or the same question with ‘hit’. There was also a control group which were not given this question. 50 pp’s were in each group. After one week they were asked questions on the clip again – this time the critical question was ‘did you see broken glass?’ None was actually shown in the clip
Findings experiment 2: In the smashed condition 16 pp’s reported broken glass compared to 7 in the hit condition (6 in the control group)
Conclusion: Leading questions do affect recall – verb used affected estimates of speed and can also affect accuracy of memory of an event
Evaluation
Generalisability: Undergraduate students – may not be generalizable to other population groups. e.g. age, driving experience, educational experience – (i.e. they may be used to paying attention and being tested?)
Reliability: High level of control as took place in a lab where extraneous variables can be controlled– can be sure the IV of question caused the estimate of speed. Questions were carefully worded to ensure no demand characteristics. It can be replicated – standardized procedure, all pp’s experienced the same e.g. watching videos of same clip. Support from other studies – Loftus & Zanni – use of the word ‘the’ or ‘a’ for if pp’s had seen a broken headlight – higher if ‘the’ is used
Application: This study has many applications - Police questioning witnesses has been changes because of this – cognitive interview of open questions ; Teachers asking/setting questions
Studies such as Yulle & Cutshall go against this – memory accurate even 5 months later
No real consequences – in real life evidence is not crucial, this is not the case in an experiment
Validity: It took place in a lab where pp’s knew something would happen – may have responded to demand characteristics by using the verbs to guess speeds rather than it definitely being a leading question. Being in a lab is different to the emotions that may occur when witnessing a real event, in real-life situations there would be an element of surprise, so you might not be paying attention. Also in real life questions may not be immediate and there would be opportunity perhaps to discuss with others what happened during the event after immediately witnessing it
Ethics: Ethical way of studying witness testimony, while pp’s were deceived over the aim it was not harmful to them. They are also able to withdraw from the study.
Aim: To study the influence of leading questions – to look at whether leading questions would affect estimates of speed and in a follow up study to see whether recall of an event would be affected by a leading question
Procedure: Experiment 1: 45 participants watched 7 clips of different car accidents and were asked to estimate the speeds. They were then given a questionnaire about the clips which included the critical question –How fast were the cars going when they …. each other’ there were 5 different conditions with 9 pp’s in each . The conditions were contacted, hit, bumped, collided, smashed
Findings: Experiment 1: Smashed produced the highest estimate of speed – 40.8 and contacted the lowest – 31.8. This showed a difference of 9mph based on verb used.
Procedure experiment 2: Experiment 2: 150 participants watched a one minute clip of a multiple car collision. They were asked to describe the film and answer a questionnaire which had a critical question – either how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other or the same question with ‘hit’. There was also a control group which were not given this question. 50 pp’s were in each group. After one week they were asked questions on the clip again – this time the critical question was ‘did you see broken glass?’ None was actually shown in the clip
Findings experiment 2: In the smashed condition 16 pp’s reported broken glass compared to 7 in the hit condition (6 in the control group)
Conclusion: Leading questions do affect recall – verb used affected estimates of speed and can also affect accuracy of memory of an event
Evaluation
Generalisability: Undergraduate students – may not be generalizable to other population groups. e.g. age, driving experience, educational experience – (i.e. they may be used to paying attention and being tested?)
Reliability: High level of control as took place in a lab where extraneous variables can be controlled– can be sure the IV of question caused the estimate of speed. Questions were carefully worded to ensure no demand characteristics. It can be replicated – standardized procedure, all pp’s experienced the same e.g. watching videos of same clip. Support from other studies – Loftus & Zanni – use of the word ‘the’ or ‘a’ for if pp’s had seen a broken headlight – higher if ‘the’ is used
Application: This study has many applications - Police questioning witnesses has been changes because of this – cognitive interview of open questions ; Teachers asking/setting questions
Studies such as Yulle & Cutshall go against this – memory accurate even 5 months later
No real consequences – in real life evidence is not crucial, this is not the case in an experiment
Validity: It took place in a lab where pp’s knew something would happen – may have responded to demand characteristics by using the verbs to guess speeds rather than it definitely being a leading question. Being in a lab is different to the emotions that may occur when witnessing a real event, in real-life situations there would be an element of surprise, so you might not be paying attention. Also in real life questions may not be immediate and there would be opportunity perhaps to discuss with others what happened during the event after immediately witnessing it
Ethics: Ethical way of studying witness testimony, while pp’s were deceived over the aim it was not harmful to them. They are also able to withdraw from the study.