| + Background to the study | - CARMICHAEL - the effect of language on recall
Students were shown the images in the middle
Group one and group 2 were given different sets of descriptions for the same pictures
The diagram above shows how they drew their recalled images slightly differently in a way that indicated that their recall had been influenced by the words that had accompanied the pictures |
| Aim | - To see if language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory |
| Background of the study | - They conducted many studies investigating ways in which memory can be distorted |
| Theories | - The schema theory
- Reconstructive memory |
| Schema theory meaning | - Memory is influenced by what an individual already knows
- Past experience is used to deal with a new experience, fundamental feature of the way the human mind works |
| Research method | - Lab experiments
- Independent measures design |
| Experiment 1 IV | - The wording of a critical question hidden in a questionnaire
( hit / smashed / collided / contacted / bumped) |
| Experiment 1 DV | - The estimated speed given by the participant |
| Experiment 2 IV | - The wording of a critical question hidden in a questionnaire:
Worded smashed, hit or no word?
- One week later, ppt's asked to complete another questionnaire
- It asked: “Did you see any broken glass?” |
| Experiment 2 DV | - Whether the answer to this question was yes or no |
| Sample (Experiment 1) | - 45 students
- 5 groups, 9 in each |
| Sample (Experiment 2) | - 150 students
- 3 groups, 50 in each |
| Procedure of experiment 1 | - Ppt's shown same 7 film clips of traffic accidents
- Given questionnaire, asked about accident
- Wording critical question hidden in questionnaire different in each group |
| Procedure of experiment 2 | - Ppt's shown 1 min film, had 4 second car crash
- Given questionnaire, asked about accident
- Critical question about speed
- Group 1 = 'smashed'
- Group 2 = 'hit'
- Group 3, no word
- One week later ppt's asked to complete another questionnaire had another critical question - 'did you see any broken glass yes or no? |
| Experiment 1 findings | Speed estimates:
- Smashed - 40.5
- Hit - 34
- Collided - 39.3
- Bumped - 38.1
- Contacted - 31.8 |
| Experiment 2 findings (response yes) | - Smashed - 16
- Hit - 7
- Control - 6 |
| Experiment 2 findings (response no) | - Smashed - 34
- Hit - 43
- Control - 44
- Majority claimed that hadn't seen broken glass |
| Conclusions of the study | - Leading questions has an effect
- People are not good at judging vehicle speed
- Misleading post event information can distort an individuals memory |
| Research methods | - Controlled laboratory experiment, had theory, control, evidence + replication
- Lacks ecological validity, artificial setting |
| Data | - Quantitative |
| Quantitive data | - Estimated speed of cars in mph
- No. of people that said they saw glass
- Can easily compare |
| Ethical issues | - Some deception but participants knew it was a test of memory |
| Validity | - Highly controlled laboratory experiment, high design validity
- Standardised: questions, clips, task
- Aware they are in study, demand characteristics |
| Ecological validity | - Low ecological validity, controlled artificial setting
- In real car crash individuals would not be consciously trying to remember what they have seen
- Under more stress, the experiment had no emotional connection with the event |
| Reliability | - High internal reliability, standardised, replicated, test-retest reliability
- Reliable as consistent results found that leading questions can distort memory |
| Bias | - All uni students, lacks generalisability
- Narrow age group, upper class + higher education
- You need high cognitive ability to gain entry in to university
- Not all the sample may have been able to drive |
| Ethnocentric | - You need high cognitive ability to gain entry in to university
- Tend to come from upper + middle social classes |
| Not ethnocentric | - Cognitive processes such as reconstructive memory is the same in all cultures |
| Usefulness of research | - Showed that it is possible to distort eye witness testimonies
- This has large repercussions with police |
| Strengths of the study | - High internal validity - SVs are controlled , equal distance , volume of clips
- No order effects - independent design, Ps only answered one critical question in both studies |
| Psychology as a science | - Controlled lab experiment, theory, control, evidence and replication |
| Link to area/perspective | - Cognitive area, cognitive process of memory
- Reconstructive nature of memory, by seeing if language in eyewitness testimony alters memory |
| Link to key theme | - Memory
- Reconstructive nature of memory, by seeing if language in eyewitness testimony alters memory |
