Loftus and Palmer 1974 Experiment Replica

Tyler Rave

IB Psychology SL

02/04/11

Word Count: 2,277 (1,557) -----EDIT EDIT EDIT **************** need to cut 57
Abstract

In this experiment we are studying the effect of verb manipulation on cognitive memory retrieval. We

showed students a simple video of a car crash after explaining they would be participating in a short

term memory study. After handing out questionnaires (See appendix 4) to all the participants with three

different variations of the last question, the students filled in their observations unknowing of the

modifications of the last question. After the questionnaires were collected the students were informed

of the true aim of the experiment (See appendix 2). The study was done in a ninth grade regions history

classroom near the end of the schooldays. Our results turned out to be fully in line with the original

experiment conducted. In conclusion we’ve found that it is possible to manipulate memory retrieval

through the use of wording and form of a question due to involuntary cognition and schema.

Introduction

Cognitive psychology, or cognition, is the study of how different people involuntarily perceive,

remember, think, speak, and solve problems. Cognitive psychologists argue that the theory of the mind

can be studied, however not directly. Because the mind cannot be studied physically, it can only be

studied by taking back roads and indirect routes to observe the mind in action. To ensure laboratory

experiments on the mind are valid, deception is often used to help keep subjects behaving naturally in

the field being studied. Another argument of the perspective is that the mind is like a computer in that it

takes in information, and then proceeds to process it in its own way. Memory for example, is the

recollection of certain events and details. Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer conducted an experiment to

show how memory can be altered by taking advantage of involuntary actions in the mind like association

and classical conditioning. Loftus and Palmer took a group of 150 people and showed a video of a staged

car accident. Multiple cars were included and the video was only shown once. Participants were then

questioned about the speed of the cars in the video using five different verbs. The results of the original
experiment showed that participants with higher verb intensity in their question were more likely to

estimate a higher speed. The aim of our study is to conduct an experiment to test the theory that

memory can be altered and manipulated.

Method

Design- The independent variable in our study that changes would be the verb we used to word the

question. The dependent variable which is dependent on the independent variable would be the

estimated speed of the car in miles per hour. Different variables were used with different participants.

We used independent groups design in order to keep the legitimacy of the experiment. In order to

conduct our experiment some deception was required to acquire accurate data from the participants.

However consent forms (see appendix 1) were used and the true aim of the experiment was explained

afterwards.

Participants- In our experiment we used a ninth grade regions history class. The class was co-ed with

students aging from 13-15 years old. We randomly distributed the different questionnaires alternating

between the three after each student. We used the sampling technique of “Opportunity Sampling”.

Opportunity Sampling is a technique used by researchers that uses participants that are convenient to

use. My partner and I conducted the experiment in this class due to us both being free at this time. The

class had approximately 25 students so we simply gave questionnaires to the first 20 who handed in

their consent forms (See appendix 1).

Procedure- We gave the test subjects each a questionnaire (See appendix 4) with four questions on it

after they watched the video of the car accident. Prior to the video playing the subjects were instructed

to take careful notice to detail for the short-term memory experiment we were conducting. Out of the 4
questions, only one, the last one, was of any significance. The other three questions were filler to help

make our fake short-term memory experiment seem believable. The other questions referred to color of

the cars, time of day, etc. The last question however was worded in three different ways. One group of

kids received questionnaires with the fourth question reading, “Estimate the speed of the oncoming car

when it smashed the other car.” The second group had the same question but instead of “smashed” it

read “bumped”. Finally the last group, control group, got no additional verb in the question. It read,

“Estimate the speed of the oncoming car.” This group was expected to get average results around the

middle of the two other groups; we expected the “smashed” group to receive significantly higher speeds

than the “bumped” group which would have the lowest out of the three. In the co-ed freshmen class,

after we collected signed consent forms, we began our experiment. The questionnaires were given back

anonymously however we ensured all the students would try their best to give accurate and honest

results. Before handing them out, we organized the three different questionnaires so they alternated

after every subject. After the results (See appendix 3) were collected we explained that the students

weren’t really a part of a short-term memory experiment and that we really intended to see if we could

alter memory (See appendix 2). We also explained we only cared about the last question, and that

people randomly got one of the three different sets of questionnaires.

Results

Standard Mean Median Range Mode

Deviation
Intense Verb 20.5 59.3 45 60 50
(smashed)
Control Group (no 10.8 45 45 35 45
verb)
Weak Verb (bumped) 17 30 22.5 45 20

Table 1.0- Tendencies of Different Verb Groups

Figure 1.0- Results of Memory Manipulation through verbs

Impact of Verb on Speed Estimations

70
60
50
40 Intense Verb (smashed)
Speed (mph) Control Group (no verb)
30
Weak Verb (bumped)
20
10
0
Mean Median
Central Tedencies

The results from our experiment(See appendix 3) depict that the more intense verb ( smashed )

got higher results in miles per hour than the weak verb ( bumped ), while the control group which didn’t

have an extra verb got results in the middle. The data in the chart includes results on Standard

Deviation and Range. The Standard Deviation of the “smashed” group was significantly higher than the

Standard Deviation of the other two groups. This difference is due to the range of 60 that “smashed” got

in comparison to the 35 and 45 ranges of the control group and “bumped”. The mean of the “smashed”

verb was almost double the mean of the “bumped” verb.

Discussion-

The results our experiments are fully parallel with the original study performed by Loftus and Palmer in

1974. The results (See appendix 3) suggest that the implications of a word can influence the response

given by the participant. This theory is coined as “schema”; it suggests that people process information

according to their existing mental knowledge. The participants were deceived and introduced to a

misleading question and behaved as planned. The mean estimated speed for the more intense verb,

“smashed”, were far higher than the mean speeds of the less dramatic verb, “bumped”, which received

minimal estimates . Thus we conclude that the verb involuntarily illustrated information from the

schema concerning the speed, and this interfered with the retrieval of memory and caused different

results for the two separate verbs. Our results support that the wording does affect the retrieval of

memory, which Loftus and Palmer proposed in 1974 claiming that eye-witness testimonies are invalid

due to similar findings. This was clearly demonstrated in the results of our experiment and the original

conducted by Loftus and Palmer.

The main strength in out experiment is the ability to have control over the variables due to the

use of deception. If the participants believe they are being tested on their short-term memory, (which

in a way they are), they will not put any extra effort into paying attention to the wording. Not knowing

that random people got different variations of the question ensured the control of the variables. The

independent variable was manipulated at ease allowing different dependent variables in the three verb

groups.

However despite our perfect results, our experiment did have limitations. In particular the

aspect of our participants can be questioned. We did not have every layer of the population, nor did we

take into account the ages of our participants. The 9 th grade students we picked to be tested could have
been chosen better. We took a regions level history class with rather young students. The two main

concerns are that the participants won’t take the experiment seriously. The other being the fact that

these kid’s ages varied from 14-15 years old. In New York the driving age is 17, most of these

participants have never driven a car before, therefore lack the common second nature knowledge of

speed and acceleration. Performing the experiment alone there was a large room for error in the field of

cheating and collaboration of answers. Some kids sitting near peers could have easily realized the

difference in the last question and jeopardized the results, or inferred the aim of the experiment.

Perhaps another main limiting factor would be the ecological validity of the experiment, which ties back

to the question of age and scope of knowledge. How can 9 th grade regions history students be

generalized to full grown adults in eye-witness scenarios? This was also one of the leading points Loftus

was criticized for in his work. The experiment was performed in a classroom environment, with the

movie being projected in the front. If the participants were in a real life scenario, surely they would react

different, and perhaps take more care in analyzing what they have witnessed instead of chatting with his

buddy next to him.

Coming back to “schema” culture could be yet another factor. Both ours, and Loftus and

Palmer’s study were performed in Western countries, and research done in more Eastern cultures could

prove to vary more.

In the future, moderations would need to be made to the sample and the sample size. To avoid

unwanted communication between the students, separate rooms could be used. Lastly the sample could

vary in culture to allow schema to come even more into play. All in all our experiment was in line with

the original and supports the theory of manipulating memory retrieval through schema.
References

Bebop0090. (2010, June 1). Car Crash Modified Loftus and Palmer [Video file]. Retrieved from youtube

database.

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction : An Example of the

Interaction Between Language and Memory. JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL

BEHAVIOR. Retrieved from< https://webfiles.uci.edu//.pdf>

 Appendix 1

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

LOCUST VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
IB PSYCHOLOGY

 I have been informed about the nature of the research.

 I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the research at any time, and that any
information/data about me will remain confidential.

 My anonymity will be protected, as my name will not be identifiable.

 The research will be conducted so that I will not be demeaned in any way.

 I will be debriefed at the end, and have the opportunity to find out the results at a later
date.

I give my informed consent to participating in this research.

Name:________________________________________________________

Date:_________________________________________________________

For participants ages 16 or under, parental approval must be provided.

Parent:________________________________________________________
Appendix 2 – Statement of Debriefing

“Class, now that we have collected your questionnaires we can reveal the true aim of the experiment. In

order to ensure the validity of the experiment we were forced to use a small amount of deception in our

method. The last question on the questionnaires was the only question we really needed; the others

were decoy fillers to help aid in the validity. Three different questionnaires were handed out. The last

question was altered in each. Some of you received the verb “bumped”, some received “smashed”, and

some received no verb, this was the control group. A control group is a group that we use as a basis to

compare to that doesn’t include a variable. The difference in verbs was done in order to attempt to

manipulate your memory retrieval of the video. We expected to receive higher speed estimations for

“smashed” and lower for “bumped”. If you wish to know your results you can contact us and we will

reveal the data from the experiment. Thank you for participating in our experiment today, enjoy the

weekend.”
Appendix 3- Raw Data

Table 1.2 Speed estimations in miles per hour.

Bumped No Verb Smashed

40 45 50
25 25 40
15 65 50
20 40 70
35 45 100
20 40 60
25 50 45
30 50 50

Appendix 4- Questionnaires

QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE 1: Less intense (bumped)

1. What color were the two cars in the video?

2. What time of day did the accident occur?

3. Whose fault was the accident?

4. In miles per hour, estimate the speed of the oncoming car when it bumped the other car.

QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE 2: Control (no verb)

1. What color were the two cars in the video?

2. What time of day did the accident occur?

3. Whose fault was the accident?

4. In miles per hour, estimate the speed of the oncoming car.

QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE 3:Intense (smashed)

1. What color were the two cars in the video?

2. What time of day did the accident occur?

3. Whose fault was the accident?

4. In miles per hour, estimate the speed of the oncoming car when it smashed the other car.