The following experiment by Loftus & Palmer (1974)

wanted to see the role of leading questions in influencing

the memories of eyewitnesses. This research can be used
to answer questions for the following content in the
cognitive approach:

Discuss research methods used in the cognitive approach.

Discuss the reliability of one cognitive process.

Background information

Loftus & Palmer wanted to study the phenomenon known as reconstructive memory. Bartlett (1932) argued that
established knowledge called schemas influence cognitive processing and demonstrated that cultural schemas
could distort memory. He argued that humans try to find meaning in what they experience and if something
seems unfamiliar they will try to fit the experience into existing schemas.

Loftus & Palmer performed a number of experiments where they demonstrated that people’s memory can be
manipulated by post-event information and wording of a question. Loftus has also demonstrated that it is
possible to plant a false memory in participants’ and that they will claim that they have actually experienced the
event. Loftus’ research has drawn attention to the problems of eyewitness testimony where people may give
false evidence because of leading questions in the courtroom.

Study 1: Procedure and results

The aim of the research was to investigate whether the use of leading questions would affect estimation of
speed.

The researchers refer to the problems of leading questions in eyewitness testimony in their introduction and
argue that some questions are more liable than others to influence estimates than others. Leading questions
are defined by Loftus as a question which either by form or content suggests to a witness which answer is
desired. Previous research has demonstrated that people’s memory for details after a car accident is
inaccurate and that there is a tendency to overestimate the duration of a complex event. It seems that it is
particularly difficult to estimate speed of a moving car (Marshall, 1969). Since previous research had shown
that estimation of speed was liable to distortion Loftus and Palmer hypothesized that people’s memory for
details of a complex event could be distorted if they were asked to estimate how fast the car was going.
Therefore they set up two experiments where participants were shown videos of traffic accidents and after that
they had to answer questions about the accident. The participants were asked about the speed of the car in
different ways. For example, participants were asked:” About how fast were the cars going when they smashed
into each other?” or they were asked: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” This was
based on the assumption that ‘hit’ and ‘smashed’ have different connotations and activate different cognitive
schemas about the severity of the accident.

The researchers conducted two experiments. Both experiments had student participants.

The researchers predicted that using the word ‘smashed’ would result in higher estimation of speed than using
the word ‘hit’. The independent variable was the different words used in the critical question and the dependent
variable was estimation of speed. 45 students participated in the experiment. They were divided into five
groups of nine students. Seven films of traffic accidents were shown and the length of the films ranged from 5
to 30 seconds. These films were taken from driver’s education films.

When the participants had watched a film they were asked to give an account of the accident they and seen
and then they answered a questionnaire with different questions on the accident with one question being the
critical question where they were asked to estimate the speed of the cars involved in the accident. There was
one critical question which was the one asking the participant to estimate the speed of the cars involved in the
accident. The participants were asked to estimate the speed of the cars. They were asked the same question
but the critical question included different words. Nine participants were asked, “About how fast were the cars
going when they hit each other?" The critical word "hit’" was replaced by ‘collided’, ‘bumped’ or ‘smashed’ or’
contacted’ in the other conditions which each had nine participants answering the question.

The mean estimates of speed were highest in the ‘smashed’ condition (40.8 mph) and lowest in the ‘contacted’
group (31.8 mph). The researchers calculated a statistical test and found that their results were significant at p
≤ 0.005.

Table 1 Speed estimates for the Verbs used in Experiment 1

Verb Mean speed estimate (mph)

Smashed 40.8

Collided 39.3

Bumped 38.1

Hit 34.0

Contacted 31.8

The results indicate that the critical word in the question consistently affected the participants’ answer to the
question. The researchers argued that it may be that the different speed estimates is the result of response-
bias, i.e. the participant is uncertain about the exact speed and therefore a verb like "smashed" biases his or
her response towards a higher estimate. It may also be that the way the question is formed result in a change
in the participant’s mental representation of the accident, i.e. the verb "smashed" activates a cognitive schema
of a severe accident that may change the participant’s memory of the accident. This distortion of memory is
based on reconstruction so that it is not the actual details of the accident that are remembered but rather what
is in line with a cognitive schema of a severe accident. This interpretation is in line with Bartlett’s suggestion of
reconstructive memory due to schema processing.

In conclusion, it seems that participants’ memory of an accident could be changed by using suggestive
questions.

Study 1: Evaluation

The experiment was conducted in a laboratory and the participants were students. Lab experiments may be
problematic in the sense that they do not necessarily reflect how people remember in real life. There may be a
problem of low ecological validity. A support for this point could be that the films shown in the experiment
were made for teaching purposes and therefore the participants did not experience the same kind of emotion
that they would have experienced if it had been a real accident.

However, a strength of the experimental method is that confounding variables can be controlled so that it is
really the effect of the independent variable that is measured. This was the case in this experiment and Loftus
and Palmer could rightfully claim that they had established a cause-effect relationship between the independent
variable (the intensity of the critical word) and the dependent variable (estimation of speed). The fact that the
experiment used students as participants has also been criticized because students are not representative of a
general population. In addition, they were most likely young and inexperienced drivers, so this may have
influenced their ability to estimate the speed of the cars. That being said, most people would have a problem
with estimating the speed of a car...

Study 2: Procedure and results

In order to investigate if the differences in speed estimation in the first experiment could be due to the form of
the question (schema processing) the researchers performed a second experiment. The aim of the experiment
was to investigate if participants who had a high speed estimate in the first part of an experiment would say that
they had seen broken glass in the second part of the experiment. The researchers hypothesized that this would
happen.

150 students participated in this experiment. They were divided into groups of different sizes. They were shown
a 1-minute film depicting a multiple car accident lasting around 4 seconds. After seeing the film the participants
answered a questionnaire. First they described the accident in their own words, and then they had to answer a
number of other questions. Fifty participants were asked:” About how fast were the cars going then they
smashed into each other?” Fifty participants were asked:” About how fast were the cars going when they hit
each other?” The remaining fifty participants were not asked to estimate speed.

After one week the participants came back to the laboratory to answer some questions about the accident.
There was one critical question this time in a list of a total of 10 questions and it was placed randomly in the list
in the questionnaire. The critical question was:” Did you see any broken glass?” The participants simply had to
answer “yes” or “no”. In fact, there was no broken glass in the accident the participants had seen but the
researchers assumed that broken glass was associated with high speed.

The mean estimate of speed by the participants who had the critical question: "About how fast were the cars
going then they smashed into each other?” was 10.46 mph. The mean estimate of speed by participants who
had the critical question:”About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” was 8.00 mph.

Table 2 Speed estimates for the verbs used in the first part of the second experiment

Verb Mean Speed Estimates (mph)

Smashed 10.46
Hit 8.00

In the ‘smashed’ condition 16 participants said yes to having seen broken glass compared to 7 in the ‘hit’
condition. 6 participants in the control condition answered ‘yes’ to the question. 34 participants in the ‘smashed’
condition answered ‘no’ to the question compared to 43 in the ‘hit’ condition. Although most of the participants
accurately reported no broken glass, more of the participants in the ‘smashed’ condition said they saw broken
glass.

Table 3 ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ answers related to the critical question: Did you see any broken glass?

Response Smashed Hit Control

Yes 16 7 6
No 34 43 44

A Chi-square test was calculated because the data was nominal. It was significant at p ≤ 0.025. Therefore, it
was concluded that smashed leads to more ‘yes’ responses as well as higher speed estimates.

The researchers argued that the results of the second experiment provided further support for the theory of
reconstructive memory and schema processing. The wording of the critical question led to higher speed
estimates in the first part of the experiment and this also had consequences for how participants answered in
the second part of the experiment. Loftus and Palmer suggest that participants are influenced by the perception
of the event but also of the post-event information provided by the critical question. The researchers argue that
this information may be integrated in such a way that it is difficult to say where it came from when the
participants try to recall the event. The verb used in the critical question provides further information to the
participant about the accident. The word ‘smashed’ gives the participant the idea of an accident that is severe
and therefore he or she is more likely to think that there was broken glass.
The results of this experiment can be interpreted in terms of Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory, i.e.
people tend to change details of an event when they try to remember it. This is probably also what happened
when the participants in Loftus and Palmer’s study tried to remember the original information when they were
given information about the speed of the cars through the use of the either ‘hit’ or ‘smashed’. The participants
may have used their past knowledge of serious car accidents to make the decision of whether or not they had
seen broken glass (schema processing).

Study 2: Evaluation

This study can also be accused of lacking ecological validity and therefore it may be difficult to generalize the
findings to real life. The comments made on the first experiment also apply to the second one.

And finally, a good video clip to help to understand the key concepts of this study.

Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction

References

Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Loftus, E.F. and Palmer, J.C. (1974) “Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the
Interaction between language and memory." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13, 584-589.

Marshall, J. (1969). Law and Psychology in conflict. New York: Anchor Books cited in Loftus, E.F. and Palmer,
J.C. (1974) “Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the Interaction between language and
memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13, 584-589.