loftus and palmer ia

Loftus and Palmer IA

Does language affect reconstructive memory?

Table Of Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1Method Design......................................................................................................................... Participants.................................................................................................................

Materials...................................................................................................................... Procedure....................................................................................................................Results...................................................................................................................................Discussion............................................................................................................................ Conclusion..........................................................................................................References...........................................................................................................................Appendices Appendix 1....................................................................................................... Appendix 2....................................................................................................... Appendix 3....................................................................................................... Appendix 4....................................................................................................... Appendix 5....................................................................................................... Appendix 6....................................................................................................... Appendix 7.......................................................................................................

Abstract

This experiment was aimed to investigate the effect of language on reconstructive memory. The study consists of a laboratory experiment; it is an example of an independent measures design. The independent variable of the experiments is the verb in the critical question (About how fast were the cars going when the smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted into each other?) used and the dependent variable is the participant’s speed estimate. The participant’s age ranged from 16-18 and were all tested together tested once in a classroom during their lunch break. The participants were randomly given questionnaires after watching a video clip of a car crash. Each questionnaire was one of 5 conditions (verbs indicated above). According to the intensity of the verb, the participant was expected to estimate the speeds of the cars (higher the intensity, higher the estimation). According to the research the experimenters found that there was very little or no expected difference in estimated speeds.

Introduction

Cognitive psychology deals with mental processes such as memory, research has indicated that this particular cognitive process is not an exact replica of experiences, but is reconstructive. In light of this new research, experiments have tested and shown that memory may be influenced by certain units of knowledge that we have about frequently encountered people, objects or situations called Schemas. The Schema Theory suggest that all new information interlinks with old information represented in a schema and can influence memory. Bartlett developed the Schema theory which eventually became crucial in understanding how reconstructive memory works and the reliability of eyewitness testimony. He suggested that how a person remembers an event is subject to change depending on the person's cultural background and what values they were taught. Therefore, when a person remembers an event, any missing piece of information regarding that event is filled up based on their schema. He tested this in his famous ‘War of The Ghosts’ experiment. This was supported by Allport and Postman, in 1947, who aimed to test the reliability of memory and the effect a person's schema has on their interpretation of an event. Loftus and Palmer tested their hypothesis that language can alter reconstructive memory in an eye-witness testimony. Their aim was to show that leading questions can alter memory depending on its phrasing. Loftus and Palmer formed an opportunity sample consisting of 45 American students separated into 5 groups/conditions (9 in each). They were shown short clips from safety films made for driver education and ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long. Following each clip, the students were asked to answer a questionnaire based on the video they had just seen. The critical question was to do with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision. Each group was then given a questionnaire to describe the car accident with a certain critical question inserted. Each condition was given the same critical question with a different verb used; About how fast were the cars going when the smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted into each other? The independent variable was the wording of the critical question and the dependant variable was the estimated speed from the participants. They found that as the intensity of the verb grew, so did the resultant estimated speed from the participants. Loftus and Palmer concluded that based on their schemas of the verbs, the participants estimated higher speeds because the intensity of the verb led them to estimate higher or lower speeds. Due to the implications of the Loftus and Palmer study, this experiment will attempt to re-create and verify the results. The experiment will try to replicate the conditions in the Loftus and Palmer experiment as much as possible. Null Hypothesis: There will be no or very little change in the estimated speeds between the conditions. Research Hypothesis: There will be a significant difference in the estimated speeds between

the conditions.

Procedure

1 Arrange the classroom so that there are 14 tables individually placed into two columns, 7 per column, all facing the front. Place a pencil on each table.

2 As participants enter the room ask them to sit individually at a table.3 Read out standardised instructions (see appendices..) which mention the ethical

considerations taken in this experiment.4 Hand out consent forms; ask participants to read it carefully and sign if they

agree to take part in the experiment.5 Collect forms once they are signed and remind participants that they can leave at

any time during the experiment they wish to. If any participant did not sign consent form, inform them they are free to leave now.

6 Ask the participants if they are ready to begin, inform them to watch the screen as the experiment will now begin.

7 Turn the lights off and start the video of the RTA. Play the video once.8 Once the video is over, turn light on, hand out the questionnaires face down to

participants; reiterating that participants are not allowed to look at them until asked to. Without letting participants know, participants on the left side of room are given the questionnaire with ‘smashed’ as verb in the critical question and the participants on the right given the questionnaire with ‘contacted’ as verb.

9 Once questionnaires are all handed out, ask participants to turn the questionnaire over and answer all the questions. Collect questionnaires once answered.

10 Read out debriefing notes to participants which include full aim of study and that their results may be withdrawn at any time if they so wish.

The study consists of a laboratory experiment; it is an example of an independent measures design. The independent variable of the experiments is the verb used and the dependent variable is the participant’s speed estimate. The participants were 45 students of the University of Washington that were each shown seven film-clips of traffic accidents. The clips were short scenes from safety films made for driver education and ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long. Following each clip, the students were asked to answer a questionnaire based on the video they had just seen. The critical question was to do with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision. There were five conditions in the experiment (each with nine participants) and the independent variable was manipulated by the intensity of the verb in the critical question.

For example: Condition 1: 'About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?'Condition 2: 'About how fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?'Condition 3: 'About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?'Condition 4: 'About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?Condition 5: 'About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?' The basic question was therefore 'About how fast were the cars going when they ______ each other?' In each condition, a different word or phrase was used to fill in the blank; smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted. The films were presented to each group of participants in a

different order. The dependent variable was the speed estimates given by the participants which was influenced by the independent variable, the verb used

Results The results from the original Loftus and Palmer experiment and the results from the re-creation differ significantly. The ‘Contacted’ group displayed some, overall, higher estimates than the ‘Smashed’ group; this was the opposite result to the Loftus and Palmer experiment. The results may have been produced due to a number of reasons, like, the participants were aware that it was a psychology experiment and had a personal connection with most of the experimenters; this may have resulted in demand characteristics. The results have led us to accept our Null Hypothesis: There will be no or very little change in the estimated speeds between the conditions.

Inferential statisticsThe Man Whitney U test was used, because the experiment had an independent measure design and the data collected was interval.The results from the MWU test, gave the value of 21 and the critical value of 8. This shows that there were no significant differences between the two conditions, compared to the results found by Loftus and Pulmer, where they showed a significant difference. The experimental hypothesis would be rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted

Discussion:

The results obtained from this experiment differed from Loftus and Palmer’s original results. This experiment supports the null hypothesis as the experimental Mann Whitney U value (MWU) was 21, which was much larger than the critical MWU value – 8. This difference in MWU values indicates that there was not a significant difference in the average speed estimated between the two conditions. There was a small difference between the mean speed estimated of both conditions. The ‘contacted’ group actually had a higher difference of about 3 km/h than the ‘smashed’ group, suggesting that there was no real impact of the critical verb. We included the option of ‘I don’t know’ causing the data to be ignored when the calculations were done. As a result the number of participants differed during the calculations.The Loftus and Palmer results predicted that the ‘smashed’ group would yield in significantly higher average speed estimates than the ‘contacted’ group. However, this experiment yielded different results that go against the initial hypothesis. These finding question the reliability of the Loftus and Palmer experiment, however there were a number of reasons that may explain why our experiment yielded different results.There were some flaws in the methodology and design of the experiment, both specifically to our experiment and the Loftus and Palmer experiment in general:1. Participants knew the experimenters on a personal lever and vice versa for the experiments and also knew that this was a psychology experiment. This could have resulted in demand characteristics and experimenter bias.2. The experiment showed a video which is not as realistic as the actual event and was done in a classroom where people do not normally expect to see such events. This results in low

ecological validity.3. The difference in units between kph and mph may have confused the participants. They are from different nationalities and may have been used to a different unit. This would have altered the estimates of the speed and the overall results.4. The experiment was conducted during lunchtime for students. This means that the participants would have rushed through the experiment in order to save their free time.5. During the debriefing several participants confessed that they hadn’t noticed the ‘contacted’ or ‘smashed’ verb. They just read “About how fast” and assumed the rest of the question. Additionally, the questionnaire had 5 questions, the critical question being the 4th. It was observed that as the participants moved down the questionnaire, they become increasingly uninterested in the questions.The design for this experiment can be altered and improved. If the time, place and participants could have been changed, this may have affected the results. The personal connection between the participants and the experimenters and the fact that it was during the students’ free time are two major factors that influence the outcome of the experiment. The instructions given to the participants should have been more clear so as to explain to them that all questions must be read fully and carefully. Overall, the experiment supported the null hypothesis as there was no significant difference between the two conditions. The results of this experiment show that the critical verb did not have much of an impact on the results of the experiment. However, if the modifications of the experiment came into effect, the experiment would possibly support the experimental hypothesis and acquire results similar to those of Loftus and Palmer.

Reference

Bartlett -1932Allport and postman – 1947Loftus and Palmer – 1974

Appendix 1

Standardised Instructions

Hello and welcome to our psychology experiment concerning memory. With your help we aim to investigate the reliability of memory.In a moments time we will hand out consent forms, which ask for your consent in participating in this experiment. From this point onwards we ask that you kindly refrain from talking to the people around you. A video that contains a minor road traffic accident (you will not see any person be injured) will be shown presently. When the clip has ended, we will hand out questionnaires that are to remain face down until you are instructed to turn them over. Once you are asked to turn the questionnaire over, you may start answering the questions. Please can we ask that there is no copying of others’ work. Once you have answered all the questions we ask that you turn your paper over. When all of you have finished we will collect the questionnaires and then proceed to debrief you.Please remember, you are free to leave the experiment at any time. If the idea of watching a road traffic accident causes you any distress please feel free to withdraw from the experiment. Also, if you so desire, at the end of the experiment you have the right to have your data removed from the results. All the information that you provide and we obtain is confidential, therefore your anonymity will be upheld.Before we get started, are there any questions?

Appendix 2

Consent Form

Thank you for taking part in the grade 12 psychology studyThe study requires you to watch a short video of a car crash and answer a questionnaire regarding the video you watched.After hearing the instructions, if you would like to participate, please sign in the appropriate area below. If you do not wish to take part please feel free to leave the room now.All you answer will remain confidential, you don’t have to place your name on the answer sheet and we can assure you that we will not personally discuss your responses with anyone else.If you feel uncomfortable at any time of the study, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time, you can simply just leave the roomYOU ARE MAKING THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE, HAVING READ THE INFORMATION ABOVE. If you have any questions please ask before signing below, thank you

I AM ABOVE THE AGE OF 16, AND I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY.Name of the participant: _________________________________________________________Signature of the participant: ______________________________________________________

Appendix 3

Contacted:

Participant 1 120

Participant 2 100

Participant 3 50

Participant 4 80

Participant 5 80

Participant 6 60

Participant 7 50

Smashed:

Participant 1 90

Participant 2 80

Participant 3 80

Participant 4 40

Participant 5 60

Participant 6 100

Participant 7 I don’t Know

Appendix 4

Questionnaire

Please answer the questions by either filling up the spaces provided or by ticking the boxes.

1) What colors were the cars? ____________ and ____________

2) Did you see any broken glass? Yes

No 3) Were there any red 'STOP' signs in the area of the accident? Yes No 4) About how fast (in kph) were the cars going when they smashed into each

other? ________ 5) Were there any trees in the background? Yes No Maybe

Appendix 5 Questionnaire

Please answer the questions by either filling up the spaces provided or by ticking the boxes.

1) What colors were the cars? ____________ and ____________

2) Did you see any broken glass? Yes No 3) Were there any red 'STOP' signs in the area of the accident? Yes No 4) About how fast (in kph) were the cars going when they contacted each

other? ________ 5) Were there any trees in the background? Yes

No

Maybe

Appendix 6

Condition: ‘contacted’Mean = Sum of items Number of items = (120 + 100 + 50 + 80 + 80 + 60 + 50 ) 7

= 77.1

Condition: ‘smashed’

Mean = Sum of items Number of items = (90 + 80 + 80 + 40 + 60 + 100) 6 = 75

loftus and palmer ia

Documents