Alternative transcript:

questions about accident including the critical question (did you see any broken glass?) Findings: Yes No ● smashed ● 16 34 hit 7 43 control Conclusion: The different speed estimates occur because the critical word influence or biases a response The critical word changes a persons memory so that their perception of the accident is affected 6 44 → Some critical words would lead someone to have a perceptions of the accident having been more serious Cognitive therapy - loftus and palmer Evaluation Strengths: Results are Causal because of the high control → Loftus and Palmer used Experiments in a controlled setting. They manipulated the IV to see the effect on the DV. This meant they could draw a causal conclusion. Because the experiment was in a laboratory, other confounding variables could be controlled, this way we are much more sure that they results are because of the IV and not another factor EWT is not reliable in real life too - so the findings of this study are true to real life → EWT has been shown to be unreliable in real life settings too. Buckout (1980) conducted a real life study involving 2000 participants. A very short film 13 seconds was shown on prime time TV. Later an identity parade was shown and viewers were invited to phone in their choice of suspect. Only 14% got it right. Weaknesses: The experiment is not true to real life → Participants watched clips of accidents which is not the same as witnessing a real accident. People don't take it a seriously and are not affected in the same way they would be in real life. This means that the experiment lacks ecological validity In real life, EWT may be more accurate → In real life, EWT may be more accurate. Foster et al 9 1994) found that if participants thought they were watching a real life robbery and that their responses would influence a real life trial, heir identification of a robber was much more accurate The sample may have been biased → Participants were US College students. Other groups of people may be more or less affected by misleading information - there may be age differences or culture differences Ethical issues: Loftus and Palmer did not gain valid consent → If they had told participants the true aim, they would have acted different - they would have known the questions were leading ones → So we would not have found out any useful information however: The participants were not in harm If they knew the purpose of the study it is likely that they would have agreed anyway Because they did not see a real accident, the study has been criticised for lacking in ecological validity → BUT if they had, then this is likely to have upset them a lot more - leading to psychological harm