You are on page 1of 16

Simplified Replication of Loftus and Palmer (1974) IA

Martin Crnicki

Psychology HL

May, 2018

_______ Words
Abstract

-Aim
-Summary of methods/procedure
-summary of results
-conclusion

Shouldn’t exceed 200 words

Not included in overall word count


Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
METHOD ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................................5
PARTICIPANTS................................................................................................................................................................5
MATERIALS ...................................................................................................................................................................5
PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................................................................6
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM ..........................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX B: STANDARDIZED BRIEFING INSTRUCTIONS.........................................................................................................10
Briefing Statement ..............................................................................................................................................10
Debriefing statement ..........................................................................................................................................10
APPENDIX C: RAW DATA ...............................................................................................................................................11
APPENDIX D: CAR CRASH VIDEO FOOTAGE .......................................................................................................................14
APPENDIX E: QUESTIONNAIRE’S......................................................................................................................................14
Background Information .....................................................................................................................................14
Questionnaire One ..............................................................................................................................................15
Questionnaire Two ..............................................................................................................................................16
Introduction
At a cognitive level of analysis, extensive studies have gone to lengths to prove

General intro to the subject area under investigation


Summarize and analyze key theories and previous research incl. references
The references must be analyzed in detail
Two to three studies
Rationale and justification
The aim and hypotheses
My aim is to investigate the role of leading questions on an individual’s recall
Null Hypothesis (H ): The sti
0

Research Hypothesis (H ): The mean of speed estimation will be significantly higher


1

One tailed hyp


Criteria
Background theories/studies are adequately explained – relevant to hypotheses
Aim clearly stated
Hypotheses stated and operationalized (put into use)
Prediction made is justified by background studies
Method

Design

The design we chose for the experiment is an independent design, where we had each

participant take part in only one condition.

Participants

The target sample size is a set of randomly allocated AISZ students, teachers, and

parents.

Materials

 Briefing instructions
 Informed consent forms
 Background information forms
 Questionnaire One (verb - smashed)
 Questionnaire Two (verb – bumped)
 Pen or Pencil
 Video footage of Car Crash
 Medium used to project the car crash (Projector, or laptop..)
 Debriefing instructions

Procedure

1. Participants were briefed and given the according consent forms

2. Participants were then given a background information questionnaire to provide the

experiment with a foundation upon which analysis could be based

3. After filling in the appropriate forms, Questionnaire’s 1 and 2 were randomly assigned

to participants and given face down to avoid the occurrence of the Hawthorne Effect

4. Then as participants indicate that they are ready, the clip of the car crash is shown

5. Participants were then asked to flip over their questionnaire’s which were provided to

them in regards to what they just saw

6. Participants were then debriefed on the nature of the experiment and are given

background information on the original purpose of the Loftus and Palmer study
Results
Sum of ranks for Group 1 is 883.5, for 28 samples

Sum of ranks for Group 2 is 712.5, for 28 samples

Value of U statistic is 306.5

Z score is 1.401075

Z critical (5%, two-tailed) is 1.959964

pvalue is 0.161192

Accept Null Hypothesis as P value >= 0.05

90, 30, 100, 50, 70, 40, 120, 90, 80, 50, 80, 48.28, 70, 40, 72.42, 80, 60, 60, 120, 40.23, 90, 65,
100, 60, 40, 60, 150, 40
20, 80, 64.37, 128.75, 70, 35, 60, 50, 80, 105, 48.28, 65, 60, 40, 56.33, 60, 80, 50, 56.33, 80, 40,
40, 40.23, 70, 60, 48.28, 48.28, 60

DATA ANALYSIs
Raw Data
Nominal: discrete – people who helped
Ordinal: Measurements that can be ranked or put in position with unknown intervals
Interval and ratio: measurement based on scale temperature (interval) and time in sec (ratio)

Mode: most frequent score


Median: mid value of scores placed in order
Discussion
Perhaps the greatest strength of Loftus and Palmer’s experiment is the degree of control over
confounding variables. As the study was lab-based, the researchers could ensure that a range
of factors (age of participants, incident viewed, environment, etc). Consequently, they could
ensure that these factors did not affect the respondents answers - and that only the verb-
condition was causing the participants to re-evaluate their memories. ! As an psychological
explanation, the reconstructive memory hypothesis is extremely useful; for instance, in
formulating guidelines in for police questionning of witnesses and suspects. The study has also
had real-world implications; based on evidence such as Loftus’, the Devlin Report (1976)
recommended trial judges be required to instruct juries that it is not safe to convict on a single
eyewitness testimony alone. " Perhaps the biggest problem in the study is its ecological validity.
Viewing a video of a crash is different to experiencing one in “real life” - for instance, their is
much less emotional involvement, which will inevitably affect recall. Furthermore, when
watching a real crash, there is much more context - and the participants had been cued to
watch the video, whilst crashes in real life a largely unexpected. " The sample used in the study
could also be criticised as participants were all students; on one level, this could introduce
confounding variables, as the students may be eager to please more senior faculty members.
More importantly, the memory capacity of students may be systematically different to the
general population - either because they are practised at memorising information, or because
they have too much “important information” to remember to waste memory on the “trivial”
data provided in the car-crash video. " It should also be noted that some psychologists have
criticised Loftus and Palmer's conclusions. They argue that we have no way of knowing that the
participants original memories had been irretrievably altered by the leading questions. Instead,
they suggest that participants could merely be following the suggestions of the researcher in
both the original round of questions and the follow-up questions. In effect, demand
characteristics could be “carried forward” - as participants have remembered that they had
been asked about the cars "smashing" into each other, they have been prompted to say that
they have seen broken glass in the follow up study.

References

Cooper, N. (2011, July 2). Loftus and Palmer Replication Crash Footage. Retrieved January 14,
2018, from, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5bBJQOL74
Appendices

Appendix A: Consent Form

We are a group of IB Psychology students and one of our course requirements is to


conduct an experiment from which we could gather necessary data and subsequently, write a
written report. The experiment will be simple and require minimal effort on your part. If you
agree to participate, please be aware that you are free to withdraw at any point throughout the
duration of the experiment.

 All of your information will remain confidential and your name will not be associated
with any research.
 We guarantee you won’t be subjected to any physical or mental harm
 If for any reason during the study you don’t feel comfortable, you may leave the room
and your information will be discarded.
 When the study is complete, we will send you an email with the given the results of the
experiment
 Participants will be debriefed about the aim and nature of the experiment

Please indicate with your signature below that you understand your rights and agree to
participate in the experiment.
____________________________ ___________________________
Print Name Signature

____________________________
Date

Appendix B: Standardized briefing instructions

Briefing Statement

Greetings, today we will be conducting a simplified replication of Loftus and Palmer’s

(1974) study. They argued that given the unreliability of court eyewitness testimony regarding

its validity, we need to define the variables that affect our memory and recall. It should be

noted that you will not allowed to communicate with any participants during the duration of

the experiment. First, you will be randomly allocated into one of two groups. Afterwards, you

will be asked to fill out a background information questionnaire which will be used for data

analysis purposes. Next, you will watch a short clip followed by another questionnaire. The

whole experiment should last no longer than 10 minutes.

Debriefing statement
Thank you for participating in our experiment. The aim of this experiment was to

investigate how word connotations cause participants to reconstruct their memory. The words
in question two given in the questionnaire differed between smashed and bumped to

determine the effect language can have on memory recall. If you still have any questions, feel

free to ask.

Appendix C: Raw Data

Participant Km/h Mph Broken Glass


1 90 
2 30 
3 100 
4 50 
5 70 
6 40 
7 120 
8 90 
9 80 
10 50 
11 80 
12 48.28 30 
13 70 
14 40 
15 72.42 45 
16 80 
17 60 
18 60 
19 120 
20 40.23 25 
21 90 
22 65 
23 100 
24 60 
25 40 
26 60 
27 150 
28 40  Average Speed:
71.28 km/h
St. Dev: 28.83 km/h
Smashed

Participant Km/h Mph Broken Glass


1 20 
2 80 
3 64.37 40 
4 128.75 80 
5 70 
6 35 
7 60 
8 50 
9 80 50 
10 105 65 
11 48.28 30 
12 65 
13 60 
14 40 
15 56.33 35 
16 60 
17 80 
18 50 
19 56.33 35 
20 80 
21 40 
22 40 
23 40.23 25 
24 70 
25 60 
26 48.28 30  Average Speed:
27 48.28 30  60.56 km/h
28 60 
St. Dev: 21.98 km/h
Bumped
Appendix D: Car Crash Video Footage

Attached is a screenshot of the video used retrieved from YouTube


(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5bBJQOL74 )

Appendix E: Questionnaire’s

Background Information

Information you provide for this questionnaire provides us with grounds for the
experiment. Therefore, please circle and/or answer the following questions. If you have
any questions don’t hesitate to ask.
1. How old are you?
_________________
2. What is your nationality?
____________________
3. Are you male or female?
____________________
4. How long have you been speaking English actively (eg. on a daily basis or at
school) ? ___ years

5. Your English language proficiency:


a) Native speaker
b) Fluent
c) Proficient
6. Driving status:
a) Driver
b) Not a driver
c) In the process of getting a driving license

Questionnaire One

Please read the questions carefully. In question 2, answer the question either in km/h or mph.
1. Give an account (brief description) of the video.
_____________________________________________________________
2. About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
km/h _________
mph _________
3. Did you see broken glass?
______________________________________________________________

Questionnaire Two

Please read the questions carefully. In question 2, answer the question either in km/h or mph.
1. Give an account (brief description) of the video.
________________________________________________________

2. Approximately how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?
km/h _________
mph _________

3. Did you see broken glass?


__________________________________________________________

You might also like