Experiment Investigating word change on memory
Isabel Cullinane
Colegio Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Psychology (SL)
Daniel Swanson
Abstract: This investigation is based on the Loftus and Palmer experiment. The results of the original experiment were that hit had a mean speed of 34.0 and smashed had a mean speed of 40.5. Our experiment used 16 students from a Spanish B class at FDR and we had two conditions. The original had more people and more conditions. Our results differed in that the mean speed of hit was 35.25 and the mean speed of hit was 37.5.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Methods
Design
Participants
Materials
Procedure
Raw data
Results
Introduction:
The Loftus and Palmer eyewitness study
…show more content…
in 1974 occurred in Washinton University and consisted of 45 university students. It’s aim was to support the claim that if the leading question asked after an eye witness testimony could change the memory of said event. The students were split into five groups. This experiment was They were then shown seven clips of car accidents that were shown at driver education classes so the researchers were aware of the actual speeds of the cars. The participants were then asked to write an account of the accident and answer questions. The leading question was About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?. The word hit (the control) was exchanged for 4 other words (smashed, collided, bumped and contacted) in the other conditions. The mean speed estimates for each condition in this experiment were: 40.5 (smashed), 39.3 (collided), 38.1 (bumped), 34.0 (hit), and 31.8 (contacted). (“Loftus”) Methods: This investigation used an independent samples design to prevent order effects that could change the results of the experiment.
Using a sample design also decreased the probability of the Hawthorne or Screw-you effect as each individual was unaware of the other condition. Participants were all 11th graders at Colegio Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Lima Peru, between the ages of 16 and 17, in a Spanish class where there was a total of 19 people. There were 16 participants overall and 8 in each condition, with 4 boys and 4 girls to avoid gender bias.
An independent variable also know as the manipulative variable is something the experimenter has control over and can be manipulated. The dependent variable is what is affected and is measured in the experiment. In this investigation, our independent variable were the questions that were asked to each participant and our dependent variable were their responses. The participants each got the same question About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? but the verb hit changed to smashed for the second condition. This question was asked because it was the same one Loftus and Palmer asked and in order to stay true to the original study we decided to deviate as less as possible. The participants responses were
…show more content…
recorded. Extraneous variables were limited but possible ones included technical difficulties, and environmental problems such as light and noise. To prevent these from happening technology was double checked beforehand, the classroom door was closed to prevent noise from coming in, participants were politely asked to stay silent while the experiment was taking place, the lights were off while the video was played and on when questions were being answered. Ethical considerations were taken. If anyone was uncomfortable with watching the video clip they would be free to withdraw and leave the room, no questions asked. Materials: The materials for this experiment were: one Youtube clip of a car crash that was 9 seconds long, a questionnaire that had 3 questions, a consent form (for each participant), a debriefing letter, pencils, a projector and a computer. Procedure: Enter Spanish room Set up projector to show car accidents http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5bBJQOL74 Participants will be divided into two groups of 8 with 4 boys and 4 girls in each group. Instructions will be given Consent forms will be passed out Tell them if they would like to withdraw they may and ask to speak to psychology students outside Ask psychology students if they are familiar with the experiment and know they results If they know the results politely ask them to stay out of the class until the experiment is over If they do not ask if they would like to be a part of the experiment, if yes have them go back inside, if no have them wait outside Play the car accident clip Pass out paper with questions, to the different groups, about the clip and ask for total silence Once answered, collect the papers and debrief the class Results: Processed data: Participant Estimation in Mph (hit) Participant Estimation in Mph (smashed) 1 40 9 10 2 30 10 15 3 40 11 45 4 50 12 30 5 32 13 70 6 40 14 50 7 20 15 20 8 30 16 60 Mean 35.25 37.5 The mean of the word hit was 35.25 while the mean of the word smashed was 37.5, from this we can see that the mean of smashed is slightly larger, by 2.25, than hit. Our independent variable (verb used) affected our dependent variable (speed guessed) as we can tell through the data given. Our results support the Loftus and Palmer experiment of 1974 because smashed got a speed higher than hit. Discussion: The results differ slightly from the original results. The original experiment had a mean speed for the word hit as 34.0 while our results show a mean speed of 35.25, and the mean speed for smashed in the original experiment was 40.5, while in our experiment the mean speed was 37.5, a slightly lower speed. Our results were expected, as we thought based on Loftus and Palmer (1974) that the mean speed for hit would be lower than the one for smashed. The numbers might slightly differ because of the difference in numbers: 45 (in Loftus and Palmer) and 16 (FDR). While also might have affected the results was the age of the participants: University students (Loftus and Palmer), High School students (FDR). About forty years have passed since the original experiment was done and during this time ideas have changed; what once may have a meant a faster speed could be seen as slower now. While in 1974 smashed would mean the cars would have been going faster than if they had hit (according to the experiment), that does not necessarily mean that today “smashed” is defined as more severe than hit, which would commonly mean that when the cars smashed they were going faster than if they hit. Bibliography: Loftus, Elizabeth F., and John C. Palmer. "Repair and Reconstruction of Patented Combinations." The University of Chicago Law Review 32.2 (1965): 353-68. Web. Loftus, Elizabeth F., and John C. Palmer. "Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction between Language and Memory." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13.5 (1974): 585-89. Web. Appendix I: General instructions: Hello, my name is Isabel, I’m Anastasia, I am Lucia and I'm Laura.
We are psychology students and we will be conducting a psychological study for our IB Psychology class. Before we begin we would like to let you know that you have the right to withdraw at anytime. In this study you will be asked to watch a short clip and then answer some questions about it. We would appreciate your participation and ask for silence during the experiment. If there are any psychology students or people who would not like to participate could you please follow us outside?
If you are a psychology student could you please come over here. Are you familiar with the Loftus and Palmer eyewitness experiment?
If you are then we ask that you stay out here until the experiment is over. If you would just not like to participate then please stay out here with them.
Sorry for the delay we will now begin the experiment but if you could first sign these forms (give consent forms). We will collect them at the end of the experiment. Now we will start the video and then give you a sheet of paper for you to answer questions.
Debriefing: Thank you for your participation in the experiment. You all received papers with questions about the car accidents, one of these questions was: About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? Some of you received the word hit but others received smashed. According to the experiment we based this off of, Loftus and Palmer 1974, those who had the word smashed would have put down a faster speed than those with the word hit. The purpose of this was to see if that was true. Are there any questions? We would like to thank you again for your participation and hope that it caused no inconvenience to your class time. Raw data: Participant Estimation in Mph (hit) Participant Estimation in Mph (smashed) 1 40 9 10 2 30 10 15 3 40 11 45 4 50 12 30 5 32 13 70 6 40 14 50 7 20 15 20 8 30 16 60 Consent Form: IA Psychology Name (printed): _________________________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________ Date ________________ Bibliography: Loftus, Elizabeth F., and John C. Palmer. "Repair and Reconstruction of Patented Combinations." The University of Chicago Law Review 32.2 (1965): 353-68. Web. Loftus, Elizabeth F., and John C. Palmer. "Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction between Language and Memory." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13.5 (1974): 585-89. Web.
3. After her last drinking spree, Karen hid a half-empty liquor bottle. She couldn't remember where she hid it until she started drinking again. Karen's pattern of recall best illustrates:
Who suggested that “we feel sorry because we cry . . . afraid because we tremble”?
The bystander effect refers to the tendency for an observer of an emergency to withhold aid if the:
Regression is a defense mechanism resulting in an individual returning to a childlike state to cope with unpleasant thoughts or stress. Regression occurs when an individual faces a particularly stressful or tense situation, and instead of handling said scenario in a mature and adult manner, an immature, childlike technique is employed to handle the anxiety. While a psychoanalytic analysis is more difficult given the subconscious nature of the tensions and resulting anxiety, there are several scenes through the movie that indicate Clark Griswold regresses to handle unpleasant and anxiety-inducing situations. In one example, Clark has been stringing lights on his house for hours, and upon attempting to light them comes to find that none of
Independent variables There are many independent variables (which can also be called the manipulated variable- the variable that is varied in the investigation), but I will only vary two of them: the height the ball is dropped, The surface material the ball is dropped on will also be changed. Other variables that could be changed are: -mass of ball -air resistance (this may occur when the ball is dropped from greater heights) -ball material -gradient of surface -size of ball -kind of ball -ball density Dependent variables The dependent or responding variable is the variable that occurs due to factors that are changed in the independent or manipulated variables. If the independent variable is changed, this would affect the dependent variable.
Chapter 4 discusses the several states of consciousness: the nature of consciousness, sleep and dreams, psychoactive drugs, hypnosis, and meditation. Consciousness is a crucial part of human experience, it represents that private inner mind where we think, feel, plan, wish, pray, omagine, and quietly relive experiences. William James described the mind as a stream of consciousness, a continuous flow of changing sensations, images thoughts, and feelings. Consciousness has two major parts: awareness and arousal. Awareness includes the awareness of the self and thoughts about one's experiences. Arousal is the physiological state of being engaged with the environment. Theory of mind refers to individuals understanding that they and others think,
As Whitbourne states, "if participants want to discontinue their involvement in the study, they must be allowed to do so without any penalty or question" (Whitbourne). Milgram claims that all of the subjects were permitted to leave at any time; however, the experimenter displays an acknowledgeable amount of persistence towards the subject in continuing the experiment, insisting that “it’s absolutely essential” that they continue and that they “have no choice” but to stay in the experiment (Milgram 80-81). Baumrind insists that Milgram’s experimental design was degrading and emotionally harming to its subjects (Baumrind 92-93). Peter C. Baker, author of “Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram 's Famous Obedience Experiments Prove Anything?,” claims that most humans tend to obey when they hear commands from an authority figure (Baker). Due to the fact that every subject in Milgram’s experiment volunteered to particpate, it can be assumed that the majority of the subjects held trust for their experimenter, who, in Milgram’s experiment, is the authority figure (Baumrind 93). As Baumrind mentions, Milgram’s experiment had the potential of causing participants of the experiment to have distrust toward other adult authorities in the future after realizing that they had been deceived and practically denied of their right to discontinue their participation in the study
Fellow psychologists pointed out whether the welfare of the participants was thought of in the experiment (Brace and Byford). Levels of stress endured by the participants were viewed by some to be excessive and the experiment shoulder been stopped. In the cause of Hofling, such anxiety was not reported. However, both cases used some form of deception towards the participants which would be questioned extensively today. In addition, the right for the participant to stop the experiment by Milgram was not exercised because of prompts to continue the experiment. Some argue the both Milgram and Hofling studies could have caused psychological harm. Both studies of obedience by Milgram and Hofling have had similar critique regarding the ethics of the trials. Psychologists of today would have viewed theses studies as unethical and indeed, would have questioned its validity. (Brace and
It is so interesting to watch our brains in action. The watch trick where the magician pressed the watch into multiple peoples’ skin to make them feel as if their watch was still there was probably my favorite part. They compared it to how when we stare at a light or even the sun there is an after image of the bright light. When the magician does this he is creating an illusion through a diversion. How intelligent was the person who came up with the thought of using that concept in magic? As I was watching the marshmallow test being done on the children, I started wondering what I would do if I did the test without knowing anything prior. I think they should do a test on adolescents, but instead of using marshmallows use money or something that pertains to an older audience. Researchers from past studies have claimed that people who resisted the temptation have less financial issues and an overall better life. I think it would be interesting to have a group of scientists construct a test on adults and then compare it to how their life already is to determine if that theory could be proven otherwise. In the documentary, it explains how our perception is based mostly off of our memory, but some is based off of our senses. I think our senses create our memory. For instance, when we get a certain smell that brings us back to our childhood. Our memory is made up of our senses. I think it is crazy how it is proven that we are more likely to fall for someone who is similar to us. Usually you hear the saying “opposites attract”, so it is strange to see that perspective. Facial expressions play a huge part in how we appear to others. We judge people before we even know them, so when we see others facial expressions does that make us assume how they are based off the way we interpret their faces? Our brains know more than we do, however, they can be tricked. There
Several years ago I viewed the video of Jane Elliot’s experiment with her third graders and I was
The hypothesis to this experiment is "if you place a plant under water in direct sunlight, then it will produce oxygen bubbles." In this experiment the independent variable where the plant is placed. The dependent variable is the water the plant is put in. Your controlled variable would both be the type of water used and the type of plant used. The conclusion to this experiment would still ben your hypothesis because its true which is " if you place a plant under water in direct sunlight, then it will produce oxygen bubbles." The only flaws in this experiment were that they used the same type of water and they did not try any other water. I believe that this experiment is
Just like any experiment there is always an independent and dependent variable; in this case the independent variable was the roles, prisoner or guard, that were randomly assigned, and the dependent variable was the behavior and reactions of the volunteers under their
n hypothesis of the experiment is that the group containing four members will perform better than the group containing two members. This is the foundation from which we have conducted our experiment.
The Milgram experiment is probably one of the most well known experiments in Psychology. The reason being is because its participants were not told what was really occurring in the experiment. After the experiment was over, the participants were mentally and emotionally affected. Later, a cognitive psychologist, George Miller described Milgram’s experiments, together with Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment, as “being ideal for public consumption of psychological research” (Blass, 2002). And indeed, Milgram’s studies, as Zimbardo’s, are clearly meant to be spread to a broad audience, the moral and preventative objectives permeating the experiments from their very outset (Stavrakis, 2007).. In this paper, I will explore how experiments such as Milgram and Zimbardo’s, as well as the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment, changed the way experiments are conducted today because of the formation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Now that you know what my situation was like going into the experiment, I will tell you what I did and what occurred as a result.