A study by Loftus and Palmer (1974) into the accuracy of Eye Witness Testimony aimed to find out if changing the wording of a question could distort ones ability to recall from memory an event.

Authors Avatar

The accuracy of Eye Witness Testimony has been tested by many different approaches in psychological research of memory.

A study by Loftus and Palmer (1974) into the accuracy of Eye Witness Testimony aimed to find out if changing the wording of a question could distort one’s ability to recall from memory an event. They showed their participants a series of car crash videos before asking them to fill out a questionnaire. One of the most important questions included asking the participants what speed the cars were travelling at. They used an independent measures design to divide the participants into 5 conditions: ‘Smashed’, ‘Collided’, ‘Bumped’, ‘Hit’, ‘Contacted’.

The results from this experiment provide good research into accuracy of eyewitness testimony because it found that by changing the wording of a question, it significantly influenced the speeds given by the participants. For example, those in the ‘smashed’ condition provided the highest average of speed of 40.8mph, whilst those in the ‘contacted’ condition’s average were merely 31.8mph. Similarly, when called back a week later and asked if any broken glass was seen, they found that although there wasn’t any present, 32% in the ‘smashed’ condition said they had seen broken glass. Loftus and Palmer therefore concluded that by using the word ‘smash’ it gives suggestions of strong impact and thus shows that leading questions have an impact on the accuracy of eyewitness’ ability to re-call situations.

Join now!

The strengths from this study include providing useful insight for the police so they know that when interviewing witnesses they should be aware of the way they phrase their questions to ensure the memory of the witness isn’t distorted in any way. Similarly, it shows that juries should be thoughtful before accepting the validity of a witness when listening to eye witness testimonies.
On the other hand there are also weaknesses to this study. Firstly, it lacks mundane realism and ecological validity because the film shown has less emotional impact than a real life situation would and the participants knew they ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

Avatar

The Quality of Written Communication is very good. The candidate writes clearly and with a good adherence to the rules of Standard English. Most students don't consider it, but in all heavily essay-based courses (Geography, History, Philosophy & Ethics, Psychology - not just English) a need for clear and precise use of English is absolutely imperative. The candidate writes confidently, applying psychological terminology where appropriate.

The Level of Analysis is very extensive - more so than the content for AO1 - and this is a good sign. There is a slightly unbalanced balanced discussion concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the study. With perhaps another strength the evaluation would be more balanced - try something like the benefits of quantitative data (no researcher bias, easy to draw up comparisons to other such data, can be statistically analysed for Significance, etc.) or the increased reliability due to the high experimental control. Mentioning the other studied is good as it shows a more diverse range of knowledge of psychological studies, all of which are related and important to the Loftus & Palmer 1974 study. The analysis is competent and professional and retains a good level of control and accuracy over the use of psychological terminology. The candidate can hope to achieve 10 out of 10 marks for AO2, and a final score of 12/15.

This is a very concise and detailed explanation of the Loftus & Palmer study from 1974 into the reliability of eye-witness testimony, and would most likely be a question in an exam paper worth either 12, 15, or 18 marks depending on the exam board. It looks to be an AQA question, and so I will mark it out of 15. The question presumably asks for an outline of the Loftus & Palmer study and then an evaluation. Candidates are being tested for knowledge and understanding (AO1) in "Outline" and critical evaluation (AO2) in "Evaluate", with 5 + 10 marks awarded respectively for both objectives. The candidate's knowledge of the study is extensive, and concentrates very well in the minute details such as accurate recitations of the average speed estimates collected for the more severe and least severe verbs, and also a close attention to the purpose of the study and the conditions the candidates were put it. The answer loses some clarity by not mentioning sample sizes or sampling methods, or even that there were two very separate experiments conducted during the course of the investigation, so I would ask candidates to ensure they're just that little bit more rigorous with the information recall when it comes to the numerical information for studies (samples sizes, duration, results, etc.). As it stands, this candidate would there expect to achieve 3 out of 5 marks for AO1.