Loftus and palmer (1974) reconstructive / schema

The Influence of Leading Questions on Eyewitness Memory: An Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Introduction

• Definition: Reconstructive memory refers to how memories are influenced by cognitive schemas and post-event information.

• Context: This study is relevant to the cognitive approach in psychology:

• Research methods: Use of laboratory experiments in cognitive psychology.

• Reliability of memory: How memory can be distorted by leading questions.

• Outline: This essay evaluates Loftus & Palmer (1974) using TEACUP, considering its strengths, limitations, and implications.

Main Body

Theory

• Reconstructive memory: Memory is not a perfect record but is reconstructed using prior knowledge (schemas).

• Schemas influence recall: Bartlett (1932) argued that people interpret new experiences using existing knowledge.

• Leading questions can manipulate memory: Loftus’ work suggests that post-event information can alter recall.

Evidence

• Aim: To investigate whether leading questions affect eyewitness memory by influencing speed estimates.

• Method:

• Lab experiment with 45 student participants.

• Independent variable: The verb used in the critical question (e.g., “smashed,” “hit”).

• Dependent variable: Estimated speed of the cars.

• Participants watched seven traffic accident films (5–30 seconds long).

• After viewing, they answered a questionnaire, including the critical speed estimation question.

• Different groups were asked:

• “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”

• Other groups heard “hit,” “bumped,” “collided,” or “contacted.”

• Findings:

• Higher intensity verbs led to higher speed estimates.

• “Smashed” condition had the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph), while “contacted” had the lowest (31.8 mph).

• Memory distortion may occur due to response bias or schema activation (more severe accident recalled with “smashed”).

Application

• Eyewitness testimony (EWT) in legal settings: Suggests that leading questions in police interviews and courtrooms can alter witness recall.

• Supports reconstructive memory theory: Shows how memory is not fixed and can be distorted.

• Demonstrates usefulness of lab experiments: Controlled conditions allow precise measurement of memory distortion.

Criticism

• Low ecological validity:

• Participants watched staged accident films, which lack the emotional impact of real-life accidents.

• May not accurately reflect how memory works in high-stress situations.

• Sample bias:

• Only students → May lack real-world driving experience, affecting speed estimates.

• Findings may not generalize to older or more experienced drivers.

• Demand characteristics:

• Participants may have guessed the aim and adjusted their responses.

• Cause-and-effect is clear, but does not fully explain why memory is distorted (response bias vs. schema activation).

Unanswered Questions

• Would results be the same in high-stress real-life accidents?

• How do individual differences (e.g., age, driving experience) affect susceptibility to memory distortion?

• Could different types of leading questions (e.g., emotional vs. neutral wording) have stronger effects?

Practical Use

• Police and legal system reforms: Awareness of leading questions can improve interview techniques.

• Highlights risks of relying on eyewitness testimony in court cases.

• Supports use of cognitive interviews, which aim to reduce memory distortion.

Counterarguments

• Not all eyewitness memory is unreliable: Some real-world studies show that witnesses can recall events accurately despite misleading questions.

• Memory distortion may depend on emotional impact: Studies on traumatic events show stronger memory retention than Loftus & Palmer’s artificial setting.

Conclusion

• Loftus & Palmer (1974) demonstrate how memory can be reconstructed, supporting the idea that memory is not always reliable.

• Strengths: Clear evidence of leading question effects, controlled lab conditions, cause-effect relationship.

• Limitations: Low ecological validity, sample bias, artificial task.

• Significance: Raises concerns about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, influencing legal procedures and cognitive psychology research.