Classic study: Loftus and Palmer (1974), Reconstruction of automobile destruction. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the cognitive area and eyewitness memory.

What this dot point is asking

Loftus and Palmer (1974) is the classic study in the cognitive area for the theme "memory", paired with Grant. You must know the aim, method, results and conclusions of both experiments, evaluate the study, and explain what it tells us about the cognitive area and the reliability of eyewitness memory.

The answer

Aim and method

In Experiment 1, 45 students estimated car speed after the verb in the question varied (smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted). In Experiment 2, about 150 participants saw a film, were asked the "smashed", "hit" or no speed question, and a week later were asked whether they had seen broken glass (there was none).

Results and conclusions

Evaluation

• Reliability and control. A standardised lab procedure with the same films makes the study highly replicable, and the controlled IV supports a clear cause-and-effect claim.
• Internal validity. High, because confounding variables (the film, the timing) were controlled, isolating the effect of the verb.
• Ecological validity. Low: watching a film clip is unlike witnessing a real, emotionally arousing accident, so the findings may not transfer fully to real crimes.
• Sample. Students may be unrepresentative (less experienced drivers, more prone to demand characteristics).
• Application. The finding has major real-world value for police interviewing and the cognitive interview, showing why leading questions must be avoided.

Examples in context

Example 1. Why this study defines the cognitive area. The cognitive area treats the mind as an information processor whose internal representations can be studied experimentally. Loftus and Palmer show memory is not a passive recording but an active reconstruction shaped by later input, exactly the kind of internal mental process the cognitive area investigates. This is why OCR uses it as the classic memory study.

Example 2. The contrast with Grant. Loftus and Palmer is paired with Grant et al. (1998), who studied context-dependent memory. Where Loftus and Palmer show memory can be distorted by misleading information, Grant shows memory is improved when the recall environment matches the learning environment. Comparing them shows two ways memory depends on factors beyond the original event, the classic-contemporary comparison the exam asks for.

Try this

Q1. State the experimental design used by Loftus and Palmer. [1 mark]

• Cue. Independent groups (different participants in each verb condition).

Q2. Explain what is meant by a leading question, using an example from the study. [2 marks]

• Cue. A question whose wording suggests a particular answer; for example asking how fast cars were going when they "smashed" rather than "hit" pushes estimates higher.

Q3. Explain what the broken-glass result suggests about memory. [3 marks]

• Cue. Because the "smashed" group falsely reported glass a week later, the post-event wording was integrated into the stored memory, showing memory is reconstructive rather than a fixed recording.