loftus and palmer experiment two

Loftus and Palmer (1974): Car Crash Experiment

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has been particularly concerned with how subsequent information can affect an eyewitness’s account of an event.

Her main focus has been on the influence of (mis)leading information regarding both visual imagery and wording of questions concerning eyewitness testimony.

A  leading question  is a question that suggests what answer is desired or leads to the desired answer.

Loftus’ findings indicate that memory for an event that has been witnessed is highly flexible.  If someone is exposed to new information during the interval between witnessing the event and recalling it, this new information may have marked effects on what they recall.  The original memory can be modified, changed or supplemented.

The fact that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable and influenced by leading questions is illustrated by the classic psychology study by Loftus and Palmer (1974), Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction, described below.

To test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory.

Thus, they aimed to show that leading questions could distort eyewitness testimony accounts and so have a confabulating effect, as the account would become distorted by cues provided in the question.

To test this, Loftus and Palmer (1974) asked people to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different forms of questions.

Estimating vehicle speed is something people are generally poor at, so they may be more open to suggestions.

Experiment One:  5 verbs in leading questions

Forty-five American students from the University of Washington formed an opportunity sample.

This was a laboratory experiment with five conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant (an independent measures experimental design ).

Seven films of traffic accidents, ranging in duration from 5 to 30 seconds, were presented to each group in random order.

After watching the film, participants were asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses.

They were then asked specific questions, including the question “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted) each other?”

Thus, the IV was the verb of the question, and the DV was the speed reported by the participants.

The estimated speed was affected by the verb used. The verb implied information about the speed, which systematically affected the participants’ memory of the accident.

Participants who were asked the “smashed” question thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the “hit” question.

The participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph), followed by “collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted” (31.8 mph) in descending order.

The results show that the verb conveyed an impression of the speed the car was traveling and this altered the participants” perceptions.

In other words, eyewitness testimony might be biased by the way questions are asked after a crime is committed.

Loftus and Palmer offer two possible explanations for this result:

• Response-bias factors : The misleading information provided may have influenced the answer a person gave (a “response-bias”), but didn’t actually lead to a false memory of the event. For example, the different speed estimates occur because the critical word (e.g., “smash” or “hit”) influences or biases a person’s response.
• The memory representation is altered : The critical verb changes a person’s perception of the accident—some critical words would lead someone to perceive the accident as more serious. This perception is then stored in a person’s memory of the event.

If the second explanation is true, we expect participants to remember other details that are not. Loftus and Palmer tested this in their second experiment.

Experiment Two: The broken glass manipulation

A second experiment was conducted with the aim of investigating is leading questions simply create a response bias, or if they actually alter a person’s memory representation.

150 students were shown a one-minute film which featured a car driving through the countryside followed by four seconds of a multiple traffic accident.

Afterward, the students were questioned about the film. The independent variable was the type of question asked.

• 50 participants were asked “how fast were the car going when they hit each other?”,
• 50 participants were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they smashed each other?”
• the remaining 50 participants were not asked a question about the car’s speed (i.e., the control group).

One week later, the dependent variable was measured – without seeing the film again, they answered ten questions, one of which was a critical one randomly placed in the list:

“Did you see any broken glass? Yes or no?”

There was no broken glass in the original film.

Participants were asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed were more likely to report seeing broken glass.

This research suggests that questioning techniques easily distorts memory, and information acquired after an event can merge with original memory, causing inaccurate recall or reconstructive memory.

The results from experiment two suggest that this effect is not just due to a response bias because leading questions altered the participant’s memory for the event.

The addition of false details to a memory of an event is referred to as confabulation. This has important implications for the questions used in police interviews of eyewitnesses .

Consequently, Loftus and Palmer support the reconstructive memory hypothesis – arguing that information gathered at the time of an event is modified by data gathered afterward.

Over time, information from these two sources is integrated so that it is impossible to separate them—in effect, we have only one memory.

High level of control

Perhaps the greatest strength of Loftus and Palmer’s experiment is the degree of control over confounding variables . As the study was lab-based, the researchers could ensure that a range of factors (age of participants, incident viewed, environment, etc).

Consequently, they could ensure that these factors did not affect the respondents’ answers and that only the verb condition was causing the participants to reevaluate their memories.

Practical Implications

The reconstructive memory hypothesis is extremely useful as a psychological explanation, for instance, in formulating guidelines for police questioning witnesses and suspects.

The conclusion that leading questions can affect memory has important implications for interviewing witnesses , both by police immediately or soon after an event and also by lawyers in court sometime later.

Interviewers should avoid leading questions and be careful to word questions in a way that does not suggest an answer to the person they are interviewing.

The study also had real-world implications; based on evidence such as Loftus’s, the Devlin Report (1976) recommended that trial judges instruct juries that it is not safe to convict on a single eyewitness testimony alone.

A strength of the study is it’s easy to replicate (i.e. copy). This is because the method was a laboratory experiment which followed a standardized procedure.

Low ecological validity

One limitation of the research is that it lacked mundane realism / ecological validity. Participants viewed video clips rather than being present at a real-life accident.

As the video clip does not have the same emotional impact as witnessing a real-life accident, the participants would be less likely to pay attention and less motivated to be accurate in their judgments.

Furthermore, watching a real crash provides much more context—the participants were cued to watch the video, whereas crashes in real life are largely unexpected.

In an experiment, you may expect to be asked questions about what you are watching, which may make you attend the film differently.

In real life, the answers you give may have consequences, which may put pressure on the witness.

Overall, we can probably conclude that this laboratory experiment had low ecological validity and thus may not tell us very much about how people’s memories are affected by leading questions in real life.

Conflicting research

A study conducted by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) conflicts with the findings of this study. They found that misleading information did not alter the memory of people who had witnessed a real armed robbery.

This implies that misleading information may have a greater influence in the lab rather and that Loftus and Palmer’s study may have lacked ecological validity.

He was especially interested in the characteristics of people whom he considered to have achieved their potential as individuals.

Biased Sample

A further problem with the study was the use of students as participants. Students are not representative of the general population in several ways.

Differences between students and the broader population, such as age, memory abilities, learning habits, driving experience, and susceptibility to demand characteristics, could make it difficult to generalize the findings.

Importantly, they may be less experienced drivers and, therefore, less confident in their ability to estimate speeds. This may have influenced them to be more swayed by the verb in the question.

Demand Characteristics

Participants know they are in a laboratory experiment, which will affect their behavior in several ways. They will be looking for clues on how to behave (demand characteristics), and they will usually want to help the experimenters by giving them the results they think they want.

We cannot know that the leading questions had irretrievably altered the participants’ original memories.

Instead, participants could merely be following the researcher’s suggestions in both the original round of questions and the follow-up questions.

In effect, demand characteristics could be “carried forward” – as participants remembered being asked about the cars “smashing” into each other, they were prompted to say that they had seen broken glass in the follow-up study.

Independent Learning Tasks

• Draw a table showing the results of experiment one and draw a bar chart to show the results of experiment two.
• Read the original article of the study.
• Conduct your own study repeating one of the experiments by Loftus and Palmer.
• Use photographs (or video clips) of car accidents and write a set of questions, one of which will be the critical question.
• Test one group of participants using the “smashed” condition and the other group with the “hit” condition.
• Calculate the mean, median and mode speed estimates for both the “smashed” and “hit” conditions. Illustrate your results in either a table or graph.

Learning Check (1)

• Write an experimental hypothesis for experiment 1. Make sure it is clearly operationalized and include the independent and dependent variables.
• Why was it a good idea to ask 10 questions rather than just asking the critical question alone?
• Why was each group of participants shown the 7 video clips (of car accidents) in a different order?
• Outline the possible sampling technique that may have been used in this study.
• The participants knew they were taking part in a psychology experiment. How do you think this may have effected their behavior?
• Can you think of a way that this problem might of been overcome?

Learning Check (2)

• Write a null hypothesis for experiment 2. Make sure it is clearly operationalized and include the independent and dependent variables.
• What is a “control group”, and why is it necessary?
• What is an “experimental” group?
• Outline one difference between the responses given between the two experimental groups.
• Outline the quantitative measure used in this study.

Devlin Committee Report: Report of the Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases, 1976 Cmnd 338 134/135, 42

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction : An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior , 13, 585-589.

Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291.

A Wealth of Free Psychology!

Loftus and palmer (1974) – eyewitness testimony.

Loftus, E. F., & 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 (5), 585-589.

This is the classic cognitive psychology study which you will look at for your H167 AS OCR Psychology exam. You will also need this study for your OCR H567 A Level Psychology core studies exam.

The theme of the cognitive psychology studies in the H167  exam is memory.  This study by Loftus and Palmer (1974) focuses on an applied area of memory: eyewitness testimony. 

In order to best understand this study, it is highly recommended that you first read the following books written by Elizabeth Loftus:

Eyewitness Testimony

The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse

What is eyewitness testimony?

Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence used in the court systems. It relies on heavily on the memory of the eyewitness (person who saw an event) and until Elizabeth Loftus and colleagues started considering the reliability of memory, the court system assumed that the memory of eyewitnesses was highly accurate. We will see in this study and the further reading, how this might not be the case.

What theory is the research based on?

The research is based upon Barlett’s schema theory, which suggests that memories can be influenced by the previous knowledge of a person. For example, if I see something flying through the air, which is blue and quite small, but I can’t quite see what it is, and then someone asks me what I saw, I might reply it was a blue bird. In this example, I didn’t know exactly what I saw, but I used my previous knowledge to make a guess about what I saw. This is the idea what Loftus and Palmer’s research was based on: our previous knowledge knowledge influences our memory.

In the previous example about the blue bird, there was an interpretation of the information of the blue flying thing and it was recorded in memory as blue bird.

This example served to demonstrate some of the ways in which memory operates: by constructing and reconstructing information, based on what was observed and the previous information which we hold.

Aim of the Experiment

Method and design.

Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study consisted of two laboratory experiments. Both experiments used an independent measures design, with the participant’s only taking part in a single condition.

Experiment 1

Independent variable: verb used in the critical question: “About how fast were the cars going when they ‘verb’ into each other?”

There were five different verbs used, all of which had different levels of intensity.

Dependent Variable: the participants’ estimate of the speed of the cars when the they collided.

Experiment 2

Independent variable: verb used in the question: “How fast were the cars going when they ‘verb’ each other?”

There were three conditions:

• Control group (this group was not questioned about the speed of the cars).

Dependent variable: Participants’ answer to the critical question: ‘Did you see any broken glass?’ (either: yes or no).

Sample and Sampling Method

The sample in experiment 1 consisted of 45 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Washington.

Experiment 2 

The sample in experiment 2 consisted of 150 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Washington.

Both samples in Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study into eyewitness testimony used opportunity sampling. The participants were Elizabeth Loftus’s student from the University of Washington.

All 45 participants were shown the same seven film clips of different traffic accidents which were originally made as part of a driver safety film.

After each clip participants were given a questionnaire which asked them firstly to describe the accident and then answer a series of questions about the accident.

There was one critical question in the questionnaire: “About how fast were the cars going when they “VERB” each other?”

One group was given this question while the other four groups were given the verbs “smashed’, ‘collided’, ‘contacted’ or ‘bumped’, instead of ‘hit’.

All 150 participants were shown a one-minute video. During the video a four-second there was a 4-second multiple car crash.

They were then given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and answer a set of questions about the incident.

There was a critical question about speed: – One group of 50 participants was asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” – Another group of 50 was asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” – The third group of 50 did not have a question about vehicular speed.

One week later, all participants, without seeing the film again, completed another questionnaire about the accident which contained the further critical question, “Did you see any broken glass – Yes/No?” There had been no broken glass in the original film.

The results in this experiment are the speed estimates of the participants after they had watched the video with the car crash and had been asked the critical question with one of the five verbs. The more inaccurate the participants’ estimate of the speed of the crash, the greater the memory distortion.

Here are the mean speed estimates for each of the five different verbs:

Smashed   40.5 mph

Collided 39.3 mph

Bumped  38.1 mph

Hit 34.0 mph

Contacted 31.8 mph

Loftus and Palmer (1974) suggest two possible reasons for these results. Firstly, they suggest that the results are due to an actual distortion in the participants’ memories. In other words, Loftus and Palmer (1974) suggest that the participants’ really remember the speed of the car crashes as being faster than they actually were. Secondly, Loftus and Palmer (1974) suggest that the results could in fact be due to a response bias, that is to say, the participant adjusted their estimate of the speed based upon the verb used and did not experience an actual distortion in their memory.

The results of experiment 2 are participants’ recollections of seeing broken glass in the video of the car crash. In the video, broken glass was not present. Therefore, any participant who recalled seeing broken glass may have had their memory distorted by the post-event information, that is, the verb used. If there were significantly more participants who recalled seeing broken glass in one condition compared with another, then we may determine that the results are due to the manipulation in the experiment or confounding variables.

Participants who saw broken glass: 

Smashed:  16

Control:  6   

Participants who did not see broken glass:

Smashed:  34

Control:  44  

These results are significant, which suggests that the experimenters manipulation did in fact cause the results.

Loftus and Palmer (1974) suggest there are two types of information which create memories. Information of an event and information after an event. They suggest these two sources of information work together to create the memory, which is what they suggest happened in their second experiment to lead some participants to believe that there was broken glass.

Conclusions

There are two kinds of information which contribute to the creation of memories: information gained during an event and information gained after the event. These two types of information may lead to a distortion of memories and even the creation of false ones. For example, seeing glass when there was in fact none.

Memory is not like a tape recorder. Human memory is susceptible to change and decay.

Small changes in information can cause distortions in memory.

Loftus and Palmer (1974) Evaluation

– Loftus and Palmer (1974) only consider two kinds of information which create memories: information about the event and information after the event. This may be an incomplete account of the information that goes in to creating memories, as they have not considered pre-event information, which may affect how individuals process the information of the event and the information after an event.

+ Laboratory study – the laboratory environment allows the researchers to control many aspects of the environment and experience of the participant, which reduces confounding variables and thus increases the internal validity of the study

– Ecological validity – the ecological validity in this study may be considered low because the study utilised laboratory experiments, which involved the participants watching videos of car crashes. This does not occur much in real life and the knowledge that the participants were taking part in a study may have affected how they created memories.

+ Application – Despite the low ecological validity in this study, we may find some ecological validity from the task which the participants were required to complete. They were asked, albeit with a questionnaire, about an event they had witnessed. This is very similar to how the police and court system addresses eyewitness testimony and thus this study has great applicablity for the criminal justice system, as it advises against the use of leading questions.

Further Reading

Psych Yogi’s Top Ten Psychology Revision Tips for the A* Student

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

Key Study: Leading questions and the misinformation effect – ” the car crash study” (Loftus and Palmer, 1974)

Travis Dixon February 25, 2019 Cognitive Psychology , Internal Assessment (IB) , Key Studies , Studies and Theories

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

 Memory is a reconstructive process, which means memories are actively and consciously rebuilt when we are trying to remember certain things. Elizabeth Loftus, her colleagues and others studying this cognitive phenomenon have shown that during the reconstruction phase our memories can be distorted if we are given false information about the event – this is called the misinformation effect.

Background Information

Some of Elizabeth Loftus’s first studies focused on how language can influence memories of particular events. Research prior to the following two 1974 experiments suggested that people are quite inaccurate when asked to report numerical details regarding events. Also, as memory has been shown to be reconstructive in nature, Loftus and Palmer predicted that the wording of a question could influence recall. They define a leading question as “one that, either by its form or content, suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads him (sic) to the desired answer).”

Have you ever seen this in a film or on TV in a court-room drama? The lawyer asks the question and the opposing lawyer shouts, “Objection! Leading the witness, your Honour”. They are objecting to the use of a leading question – asking in a question that is guiding (or leading) the respondent towards a particular answer.

For example, I would be asking a leading question if I asked you, “how much do you like Psychology?” I’m already implying in my question that you do in fact like Psychology, I simply want to know how much. You’re lead to answer in a way that suggests you like this subject. What if you hate it, or find it immensely boring? It would be more difficult to respond this way to this particular question.

In the following two experiments, Loftus and Palmer first studied the effects verbs in questions on speed estimates and also if these verbs could impact memory in other ways.

The following information has been adapted from our textbook,  IB Psychology: A Student’s Guide.

Key Study Experiment #1: 5 verbs in leading questions.

In this first experiment, 45 college participants were divided into five groups of nine and watched seven short videos (5 – 30 seconds) taken from driver’s education courses that involved a traffic accident of some kind. The participants were first asked an open-ended question: “Give an account of the accident you have just seen”, which was followed by a series of specific questions about the accident. There was one critical question that asked “About how fast were the cars going when they … each other”. The five groups were given five different verbs. I.e. one group was asked “hit”, one was asked, smashed, etc.

The results were as follows (mph):

• Contacted: 31.8
• Bumped: 38.1
• Collided: 39.3
• Smashed: 40.5

A note on the films and speed estimates : Four of the seven films were staged crashes made specifically for education purposes, and so the precise speed in mph (miles per hour) of the vehicles is known. The results below show the actual speed of the car in the video (first number) and the mean guesses from all participants (second number)

• 20mph = 37.7mph
• 30mph = 36.2mph
• 40mph = 39.7/36.1 (there were two films of 40mph).

From the above results it shows that the different verbs can lead to different speed estimates. The researchers provided two possible explanations for these results. The first explanation is that the participants might not have been sure about the speed and the verb simply led them towards a particular answer. If they were not sure of the speed and thought it was around 30 to 40mph, the verb would have biased their answer in a particular direction. This doesn’t tell us much about the reconstructive nature of memory and is more a possible limitation in the research methodology, if anything.

However, they also hypothesized that perhaps the verb “smashed” caused the participants to remember the crash differently. During the process of imagining the crash in order to remember the details and answer the questions, the verb may have affected the memory itself. The participants might have actually been imagining a more severe crash and a faster speed than was really portrayed in the video because of the leading question; when remembering the incident and playing it over in their minds, the verb “smashed” might have led to an actual change in the memory of the video.

But this data doesn’t provide strong support for this hypothesis so they conducted a second experiment, which will be explained in the next section.

Experiment #2: The broken glass manipulation

In this study, 150 participants were put into three different groups but all watched the same film (in smaller groups). The film showed an accident involving many cars and the entire film lasted for less than one minute and the accident part of film lasted 4 seconds. After the participants watched the film, they were given a questionnaire. The first question was again open-ended and asked the participants to describe the accident in their own words. This was followed by a series of specific questions, with one critical question.

• 50 participants were asked “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
• 50 participants were asked “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”

If the verb smashed significantly increased the memory of broken glass when there was none, this is stronger evidence to show that the verb was acting as false information which was actually changing the memories of participants in this condition.

One week later all participants returned and were asked a series of ten questions but they didn’t watch the film again. One of the ten questions appeared randomly in a different order for each participant and asked: “Did you see any broken glass?” And there was a check-box for Yes or No.

Once again the results showed that the speed estimates of those asked about the cars with the verb “smashed” were higher than those with the verb “hit” (10.46mph and 8.00mph respectively).

Here are the results regarding the memory of seeing broken glass:

These results provide some evidence for the explanation that the misinformation effect was occurring. Perhaps the verb “smashed” was influencing people’s recollections of the crash and they were remembering it as being more severe than it really was, which is why they could remember seeing broken glass even when there wasn’t any in the original video.

Loftus and Palmer argue that two types of information are influential in making up someone’s memory. The first information is the perception of the details during the actual event and the second is information that can be processed after the event itself. In this case, information from our environment might impact our memory processes, which could lead to distortions. They argue that the verb “smashed” provides additional external information because it shows that the cars did actually smash into each other. The verb that has connotations of a stronger and more severe impact than hit or collided could result in a memory of the incident that never happened, like remembering broken glass when there was none. Remember that the second question was asked an entire week after the original videos were viewed and the leading questions asked. The participants are reconstructing their memories after one week and the difference between the scores is quite significant.

Exam (and IA) Tips These studies can be used to show the reconstructive nature of memory. If asked about “one study” it would be fine to write about both of these versions of the same experiment – the focus should be on the second one, though.  The second study is the important one to be able to explain in exams as it shows the reconstructive nature of memory. For the IA, I would not use the broken glass version of the experiment as it gathers nominal data and this makes the inferential stats a little more difficult. The best option is to choose two verbs from the first study and replicate that. This study could be used for schema theory, but I prefer other studies (e.g. Bransford and Johnson)

Critical Thinking Questions

• What do these experiments show that memory is reconstructive?
• Is this study limited in population validity? For example, look at the accuracy of their guesses in the first experiment – is this evidence that perhaps these results might not apply to other groups of people? (Think about experience).
• What are the possible practical implications of these findings?
• What are the ethical considerations involved in these experiments?
• Can you find any other limitations with this study?

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. ( Read full text here )

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

​Misleading Information – Leading Questions

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a classic experiment to investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Their sample consisted of 45 American students, who were divided into five groups of nine. All of the participants watched a video of a car crash and were then asked a specific question about the speed of the cars. Loftus and Palmer manipulated the verb used in the question, for example: “How fast were they cards going when they smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted with each other?’

They found that the estimated speed was affected by the verb used. For example, participants who were given the verb smashed reported an average speed of 40.5 mph, where participants who were given the word contacted reported an average speed of 31.8 mph, an overall difference of 8.7 mph.

The results clearly show that the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is affected by leading questions and that a single word in a question can significantly affect the accuracy of our judgements.

In a second experiment, Loftus and Palmer used a different sample of 150 American students, who were divided into three even groups. All the students watch a one-minute video depicting a car accident and were then given a questionnaire to complete.

One group was asked: “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”

Another group was asked: “How fast were the cards going when they hit each other?”

The final group (control) was not asked about the speed of the vehicles. One week later the participants returned and were asked a series of questions about the accident. The critical question was: “Did you see any broken glass?” 32% of the participants who were previously questioned using the verb smashed, reported seeing broken glass; 14% of the participants who were previously questioned using the verb hit, reported seeing broken glass; and 12% of the control group reported seeing broken glass.

There was no broken glass in the video clip and the participants who were questioned previously using the verb smashed, were significantly more likely to report seeing the broken glass, as a result of the earlier leading question. The verb smashed has connotation of faster speeds and broken glass and this question led the participants to report seeing something that was not actually present. Their memory for the original event was distorted by the question used one week earlier, demonstrating the power of leading questions.

Evaluation:

Loftus and Palmer’s research has questionable ecological validity . On the one hand, questioning participants about everyday events like a car crash appears to be a genuine measure of eyewitness testimony. However, the participants in their research watched a video of a car crash and witnessed the events unfold from start to finish. In everyday reports of car accidents, witnesses rarely see the whole event; they are either involved in the event directly, or see a small part of the event happen in their peripheral vision. Therefore, their results to do reflect everyday car accidents and we are unable to conclude if participants involved in real accidents, who would have a stronger emotional connection to the event, would also be susceptible to leading questions in the same way.

A second weakness of Loftus and Palmer’s research is that their study lacks population validity. Their two experiments consisted of 45 and 150 American students. It is reasonable to argue that the students in their experiment were less experienced drivers, who may be less accurate at estimating speeds. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example, older and more experience drivers, who may be more accurate in their judgement of speeds and therefore not as susceptible to leading questions.

However, Loftus and Palmer’s research took place in a laboratory of Washington University and was therefore highly controlled. This high degree of control reduces the chance of extraneous variable, increasing the validityof the results. Furthermore, it is easy for psychologists to replicate their research, to see if the same results are achieved with a different population.

• Leading Questions
• Loftus and Palmer (1974)
• Misleading Information
• Post-Event Discussion
• Ecological Validity

You might also like

​duration of long-term memory, factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Quizzes & Activities

Video: Loftus & Palmer (1974)

2nd February 2017

A Level Psychology Topic Quiz - Research Methods

Research methods: mcq revision test 1 for aqa a level psychology.

Topic Videos

Example Answers for Research Methods: A Level Psychology, Paper 2, June 2018 (AQA)

Exam Support

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Learn More Psychology

• Memory Psychology

False Memories

How false memories are created and can affect our ability to recall events..

Permalink Print   |  

You may take it for granted that the person whose memory you can trust the most is your own.

Yet, psychologists have found that our recollection of everyday events may not be as dependable as we would believe. Moreover, even once information has been committed to memory, it can be altered. Our recollection of memories can be manipulated and even entire sets of events can be confabulated ( Coan, 1997 ). 1

False memories have been investigated by psychologists as early as Freud but have attracted significant attention in recent decades. Our recollection of past events can affect not only our future decisions and opinions but also more significant outcomes, such as court verdicts, when influenced by inaccurate eyewitness testimonies ( Loftus, 1975 ). 2

In this article, we will look at how false memories are created, the impact of questioning, language and other factors on our recall and the real life consequences of false memories.

False memories and False Memory Syndrome

Many of us experience false memories without even realising:

Imagine that you are walking past a person in the street and see them clearly for only a split second. Once they are out of view, you might note that they were carrying a satchel. But what color was it?

"Green," you might think, "Yes, it was green."

But then self-doubt sets in:

"Or was it the person's coat that was green - wasn't the bag blue? Yes, it was an eggshell blue. I remember now," you may ruminate.

Once you have suggested to yourself this alternative, a false memory may develop and your recollection of events can become skewed.

False memories are a normal occurrence and they will generally have little impact on our lives. In rare cases, however, a false memory can bother a person.

A person may come to believe the traumatic details of a false memory and it can then affect them in their ability to function as normal in everyday life. In such severe cases, the experience has been labelled as false memory syndrome , although there is some doubt as to its existence as a condition.

You can, however, experience and believe false memories without suffering from false memory syndrome. You might recall a previous holiday and idealize it - look at it through 'rose-tinted glasses', and remember spending all of your time on a sunny beach. You overlook the stress of the flight, finding your hotel and the days that it rained. Your memories in this case do not entirely reflect reality, but you do not suffer as a result of them.

Framing questions

Although they are referred to as 'false memories', often our memories are distorted only when we attempt to recall them. Perhaps the best known examples of this are two experiments using leading questions , conducted by U.S. psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer in 1974. 3

In the first experiment, Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed different videos of a car collision to different participants. Some saw a video of the car crashing at 20mph, others a video of a collision at 30mph and the rest a video of a crash at 40mph.

The participants were then asked the speed of the collision in a survey question. The question was identical for each participant except for the verb mentioned when describing the crash. Some verbs suggested that the crash was a minor collision, others a full-blown crash.

The experiment results showed that the verb used to describe the crash had more effect on the speed estimated than the actual speed of the car that the participants witnessed in the video.

In a second experiment, participants were shown similar videos of a car and later questioned about what they had witnessed. The question asked the subject whether or not they had seen any broken glass following the collision, and again, the verb describing the collision was altered to suggest varying degrees of severity.

The researchers found that the more serious the accident seemed in the question wording, the more likely participants were to recall having seen broken glass around the car.

Both studies suggest that the framing of questions following an event can affect our recollection of it, even after it has been remembered. Even seemingly slight changes, such as verb alterations in Loftus and Palmer's experiments, can create false memories of events. In fact, Loftus found in a later experiment that even the switching of 'a' and 'the' in a question can influence respondents' recollection of an object.

Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978) showed participants a number of slides of a car at a junction. They were later questioned regarding the scene. Some were asked whether they had seen 'a' stop sign, others 'the' stop sign. Lotus et al found that those participants asked about 'the' stop sign were more likely to recollect it than other group. The use of the definite article seems to assure people that an object exists without them needing to question its accuracy. 4

All of these experiments support Loftus' misinformation effect on our memories - the manipulation of past event recollection by misguidance following it; a case of what the German psychologist Georg Müller (1850-1934) may have identified as retroactive interference of information on our memories ( Lechner, Squire and Byrne, 1999 ). 5

Inventing an entire event

We have learnt from these experiments that our memory cannot necessarily be relied on for the recollection of specific details of an event. But we would know if we had been lead to believe that an entire event had been suggested to us - or would we? This question was answered by one of Elizabeth Loftus' psychology students in an experiment to gain extra credits at university:

James Coan (1997) produced four booklets containing recollections of events from childhood and gave each to a family member. The stories in the booklets were true except for the one given to Coan's brother - a description of him being lost in a shopping mall as a child, an older man finding him and him then finding his family again. 1

Each family member was asked to read through the booklets and familiarise themselves with their contents, after which they were asked to recall the stories. Coan's brother recalled the story with additional details invented by himself, and was unable to identify his as being the falsified story.

This lost in the mall technique of implanting false memories was further tested in a formal experiment with Loftus and Jacqueline Pickrell ( Loftus and Pickrell, 1995 ), and shows how we can even adopt rich false memories that are entirely invented. 6

Creating false memories

Researchers conducting experiments involving human memory often need to implant invented information and use the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm to create false memories. This involves reading a list of related words to a person (e.g. 'sun, hot, relax, beach, tan, after-sun') and asking them to recall them. It has been found that people will often recall false memories of words which are semantically linked, such as 'holiday' or 'sunbathing', rather than the actual words that had been given to them ( Roediger and McDermott, 1995 ). 7

One use for the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm was when researchers at the University of Virginia sought and answer to the question: can your mood affect how receptive you are to false memories?

First, participants of the experiment were lured with false memories using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. Then, the researchers played music to participants to induce either a more positive or more negative mood. They found that subjects in a more negative mood were less likely to recall false memories implanted previously ( Storbeck and Clore, 2005 ). 8

Eyewitness testimony: memories in court

The discovery of false memories has had wide-reaching implications, particularly in court cases, where accurate eyewitness testimonies are essential. Factors such as the presence of a weapon when a crime is being committed can affect our ability to recall events clearly. Johnson and Scott (1976) demonstrated this with two groups of participants. Each group was asked to wait in a room. The first group heard a conversation in a nearby room, and saw a man leave the room with greasy hands holding a pen. The second group heard an aggressive argument and then witnessed a man exit the room holding a bloodied knife. The participants were then asked to identify each man from a lineup of photographs. 9

Members of the first group, who did not witness a weapon, were more likely to be able to correctly identify the man than the group who saw a weapon.

One argument arising from this would be that where a witness gave testimony regarding a defendant who they said had a weapon, the accuracy their recall may be questioned with reference to the effect of weapon focus .

It has also been suggested that in cases such as those involving sexual abuse, in which historic events must be recalled, the techniques used to help a person to recall events may in some circumstances generate false memories.

Hypnosis, for example, which uses suggestions and visualization to induce a trance, could inadvertently interfere with the recall process. For example, Susan Clancy (2005) noted that prior to hypnosis, people who claimed that they had been abducted by aliens did not possess detailed memories of the experience. 10

The debate and research regarding false memories and memory recall continue today, demonstrating the fluidity of our memories, reminding us many factors can affect our ability to recall events even after they have occurred. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who lead some of the first research into false memories, has since testified in hundreds of court cases with regards to eyewitness testimonies and an increased focus on the issue has lead to an improved understanding of the techniques used to recover memories.

• Coan, J.A. (1997). Lost in a Shopping Mall: An Experience with Controversial Research. Ethics & Behavior . 7 (3). 271-284.
• Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report. Cognitive Psychology . 7 . 560-572.
• 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 (5). 585-589.
• Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.G. and Burns, H.J. (1978). Semantic Integration of Verbal Information into a Visual Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology . 4 (1). 19-31.
• Lechner, H.A., Squire, L.R. and Byrne, J.H. (1999). 100 Years of Consolidation - Remembering Müller and Pilzecker. Learning & Memory . 6 (2). 77-87.
• Loftus, E.F. and and Pickrell, J.E. (1995). The Formation of False Memories. Psychiatric Annals. 25 (12). 720-725.
• Roediger, H.L. and McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating False Memories: Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology . 21 (4). 803-814.
• Storbeck, J. and Clore, G.L. (2005). With Sadness Comes Accuracy; With Happiness, False Memory: Mood and the False Memory Effect. Psychological Science. 16 (10). 785-791.
• Johnson, C and Scott, B. (1976). Eyewitness testimony and suspect identification as a function of arousal, sex or witness and scheduling of interrogation. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association.
• Clancy, S.A. (2005). Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped By Aliens. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Which Archetype Are You?

Are You Angry?

Windows to the Soul

Are You Stressed?

Attachment & Relationships

Memory Like A Goldfish?

31 Defense Mechanisms

Slave To Your Role?

Are You Fixated?

Interpret Your Dreams

How to Read Body Language

How to Beat Stress and Succeed in Exams

More on Memory Psychology

Test your short-term memory with this online feature.

Memory Test

Why Do We Forget?

Why do we forget information? Find out in this fascinating article exploring...

Conditioned Behavior

What is conditioning? What Pavlov's dogs experiment teaches us about how we...

Interrupt To Remember?

Explanation of the Zeigarnik effect, whereby interruption of a task can lead to...

Chew For Memory?

How research at two universities found memory recall can be improved by chewing...

Sign Up for  Unlimited Access

• Psychology approaches, theories and studies explained
• Body Language Reading Guide
• How to Interpret Your Dreams Guide
• Self Hypnosis Downloads
• Plus More Member Benefits

You May Also Like...

Persuasion with ingratiation, dark sense of humor linked to intelligence, nap for performance, psychology of color, why do we dream, master body language, making conversation, brainwashed, psychology  guides.

Learn Body Language Reading

How To Interpret Your Dreams

Overcome Your Fears and Phobias

Psychology topics, learn psychology.

• Access 2,200+ insightful pages of psychology explanations & theories
• Insights into the way we think and behave
• Body Language & Dream Interpretation guides
• Self hypnosis MP3 downloads and more
• Behavioral Approach
• Eye Reading
• Stress Test
• Cognitive Approach
• Fight-or-Flight Response
• Neuroticism Test

© 2024 Psychologist World. Home About Contact Us Terms of Use Privacy & Cookies Hypnosis Scripts Sign Up

PHILO-notes

Free Online Learning Materials

The Loftus and Palmer Experiment

The Loftus and Palmer Experiment is a classic study in psychology that explored the effect of leading questions on eyewitness testimony. The study was conducted in 1974 by Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer, two renowned psychologists, and has had a significant impact on our understanding of the factors that can influence memory recall.

The study involved showing participants a video of a car accident and then asking them to estimate the speed of the cars involved in the collision. The participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups and each group was asked a different question about the accident. The questions varied in the wording used to describe the speed of the cars, with some questions using the word “smashed” and others using the word “hit” to describe the collision.

The results of the study were striking. Participants who were asked the question using the word “smashed” estimated a higher speed for the cars than those who were asked the question using the word “hit.” This effect was found to be statistically significant and suggests that the wording of questions can have a significant impact on eyewitness testimony and memory recall.

Subsequent studies have replicated and extended the findings of the Loftus and Palmer Experiment, demonstrating that leading questions can influence memory recall and even lead to false memories. The phenomenon is known as the “misinformation effect” and has important implications for the legal system, where eyewitness testimony is often relied upon to convict or exonerate suspects.

Critics of the study have argued that the experimental design may have lacked ecological validity and that the findings may not generalize to real-world situations. Additionally, some have questioned the ethical implications of manipulating participants’ memories in this way, arguing that it may have unintended consequences and pose a risk to their well-being.

Despite these criticisms, the Loftus and Palmer Experiment remains a seminal study in the field of psychology and has had a significant impact on our understanding of the factors that can influence memory recall and eyewitness testimony. The study has inspired numerous follow-up studies and has stimulated ongoing research into the mechanisms underlying the misinformation effect.

Moreover, the study has important practical implications, particularly for the legal system. The findings suggest that eyewitness testimony should be treated with caution and that efforts should be made to reduce the impact of leading questions and other factors that can influence memory recall.

Overall, the Loftus and Palmer Experiment is an important and influential study in psychology that has helped to deepen our understanding of the complex processes underlying memory recall and the impact of external factors on eyewitness testimony. While the study has been subject to some criticism, its findings have been replicated and extended in subsequent studies and have important implications for both theoretical and practical applications in the field of psychology.