In Experiment 1 of Loftus & Palmer (1974), what did participants do and what was the key manipulation?
A: Participants read written descriptions of car accidents; the manipulation was the order of information presented
B: Participants watched films of car accidents; the manipulation was the verb used in the critical question about vehicle speed
C: Participants viewed photographs of accident scenes; the manipulation was the presence or absence of damage in the photos
D: Participants heard audio recordings of accidents; the manipulation was the emotional tone of the narrator
Correct: Participants watched films of car accidents; the manipulation was the verb used in the critical question about vehicle speed
Forty-five student participants watched short film clips of car accidents. Immediately afterwards, they answered questions including the critical item: "About how fast were the cars going when they _____ each other?" Different groups of participants received a different verb in the blank: "contacted," "hit," "bumped," "collided," or "smashed." This is a classic between-subjects design in which the only difference across conditions was the single word in the question — the verb implying a greater or lesser degree of force. Speed estimates varied significantly across conditions, demonstrating that post-event language can alter quantitative memory reports.
What were the mean speed estimates in the "contacted" and "smashed" conditions of Experiment 1?
A: Contacted: ~25 mph; Smashed: ~35 mph
B: Contacted: ~31.8 mph; Smashed: ~40.8 mph
C: Contacted: ~20 mph; Smashed: ~60 mph
D: Contacted: ~45 mph; Smashed: ~55 mph
Correct: Contacted: ~31.8 mph; Smashed: ~40.8 mph
The mean estimated speed in the "contacted" condition was approximately 31.8 mph, rising through "hit" (~34.0), "bumped" (~38.1), "collided" (~39.3), and reaching approximately 40.8 mph in the "smashed" condition — a difference of 9 mph simply from changing one word. Importantly, all participants watched the same films; the differences in speed estimates cannot reflect real differences in the events. The verb served as post-event information that coloured participants' memory reports, with more forceful verbs pulling estimates higher. This demonstrated that memory reports are susceptible to post-event linguistic framing even on quantitative, seemingly objective judgments.
What did Experiment 2 of Loftus & Palmer add, and what was its most striking finding?
A: It tested recognition memory rather than recall, and found post-event information had no effect on recognition
B: It tested whether the verb-manipulation effect persisted over time: one week later, "smashed" participants were significantly more likely to falsely report seeing broken glass that was not in the film
C: It replicated Experiment 1 with real-accident witnesses rather than filmed events, confirming the ecological validity of the laboratory findings
D: It showed that the verb effect was entirely explained by demand characteristics: participants guessed the experimenter's hypothesis and reported higher speeds to be helpful
Correct: It tested whether the verb-manipulation effect persisted over time: one week later, "smashed" participants were significantly more likely to falsely report seeing broken glass that was not in the film
In Experiment 2, 150 participants watched a different car crash film. Immediately after, they answered questions containing either "smashed," "hit," or no question about speed (control). One week later, they returned and answered new questions, including: "Did you see any broken glass?" There was no broken glass in the film. The "smashed" group answered "yes" significantly more often than the "hit" or control groups (32% vs. 14% and 12% respectively). This was a critical finding: the misleading verb used in the initial questioning had not just shifted speed estimates — it appeared to have altered what participants "remembered" seeing, planting a false detail into their memory of the event.
What theoretical model of memory does Loftus & Palmer support, in contrast to the "storehouse" model?
A: Memory as a skill: memories improve with practice and cannot degrade without interference
B: Memory as a permanent record: memories are faithfully stored and errors in retrieval are due to retrieval failures, not storage corruption
C: Memory as reconstruction: memories are actively constructed at the point of retrieval using available schemas, context, and post-event information
D: Memory as association: memories are stored as associative networks and retrieval depends on cueing the correct node
Correct: Memory as reconstruction: memories are actively constructed at the point of retrieval using available schemas, context, and post-event information
The storehouse or "video recorder" model treats memory as faithful storage: memories are laid down accurately and retrieval simply plays them back. Loftus & Palmer's findings are incompatible with this model — if memory were faithful storage, the verb in a post-event question could not alter what was "stored." Instead, the results support a reconstructive theory of memory (associated with Bartlett's 1932 work on schemas): memories are not stored as complete, accurate records but as fragmentary traces that are actively reconstructed at retrieval using stored information, context, expectations, and — crucially — post-event information such as questions and suggestions. The Loftus & Palmer studies were foundational in establishing this reconstructive account as the dominant model in cognitive psychology.
What is the "misinformation effect," and how did Loftus's later research extend the Loftus & Palmer findings?
A: The tendency to spread misinformation on social media; Loftus studied this in the context of jury decision-making
B: The finding that post-event false information becomes incorporated into memory and can cause witnesses to "remember" events that did not occur
C: The effect of emotional arousal on reducing the accuracy of eyewitness memory for peripheral details
D: The tendency of courtroom cross-examination to mislead witnesses through rapid-fire questioning
Correct: The finding that post-event false information becomes incorporated into memory and can cause witnesses to "remember" events that did not occur
The misinformation effect is the broader phenomenon demonstrated by the Loftus & Palmer experiments: when misleading post-event information is provided after a witnessed event — in questions, narratives, or social discussion — it can become incorporated into the original memory trace, causing witnesses to "remember" details that were never present. Loftus's subsequent work pushed this even further: in the "Lost in the Mall" studies (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995), she showed that entirely false childhood memories — being lost in a shopping mall — could be implanted in participants who had no such experience, simply through suggestion by a trusted family member. These findings have profound implications for therapeutic memory recovery and the reliability of childhood abuse memories elicited through suggestive techniques.
What practical reforms in forensic interviewing have been inspired by research on eyewitness memory, including Loftus & Palmer?
A: Banning eyewitness testimony entirely in criminal cases where physical evidence is available
B: Development of the Cognitive Interview and PEACE framework, which use open-ended, non-leading questions to elicit accurate memory
C: Requiring all eyewitness interviews to be conducted under hypnosis to enhance recall accuracy
D: Replacing eyewitness identification with composite sketch procedures as the only admissible form of testimony
Correct: Development of the Cognitive Interview and PEACE framework, which use open-ended, non-leading questions to elicit accurate memory
Research on eyewitness memory has directly informed evidence-gathering procedures in law enforcement. The Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) uses techniques derived from cognitive psychology — mental reinstatement of context, encouraging complete reporting, recalling in different orders and perspectives — to maximise accurate recall without suggestive prompting. The PEACE model (Preparation, Engage, Account, Closure, Evaluate), adopted by UK police, similarly emphasises open-ended questioning and avoidance of leading questions. Sequential line-up procedures (replacing simultaneous line-ups) and instruction scripts for identification procedures have also been reformed based on Loftus-inspired research. Expert testimony by memory researchers (including Loftus herself) is now common in cases where eyewitness evidence is contested.
What were the main methodological limitations of the original Loftus & Palmer (1974) study?
A: The study was conducted in a foreign language, limiting its applicability to English-speaking legal systems
B: Participants were student volunteers watching films — the stress, weapon focus, and stakes of real accidents may produce different memory characteristics
C: The study never measured whether participants' original memories were accurate, so there was no baseline for comparison
D: Both B and C
Correct: Both B and C
Two significant limitations apply: (1) Ecological validity — participants were student volunteers watching short films of traffic accidents in a laboratory. Real witnesses experience high arousal, stress, potential threat, and weapon focus (attention narrowing to the weapon or point of impact), which may alter encoding quality in ways not captured in laboratory studies. Some research suggests that high stress can enhance memory for central details while impairing peripheral ones. (2) Baseline accuracy — because all participants watched the same films, it was not possible to establish individual baseline accuracy and compare it against post-manipulation memory. The study was designed as a between-subjects experiment and could not track within-subject memory change. These limitations do not invalidate the findings but limit direct translation to courtroom evidence.
A debate in memory research concerns whether post-event misinformation overwrites the original memory trace or simply creates coexisting but competing traces. What does current evidence suggest?
A: Post-event information completely overwrites the original trace; it is permanently lost and cannot be recovered
B: Current evidence favours coexistence: both traces may persist, but the misinformation trace is more accessible at retrieval — original memories can sometimes be recovered under optimal conditions
C: The debate is entirely resolved: post-event information cannot alter original memories at all, and the Loftus & Palmer effects are entirely response-bias artefacts
D: Misinformation effects apply only to peripheral details, never to central actions or faces
Correct: Current evidence favours coexistence: both traces may persist, but the misinformation trace is more accessible at retrieval — original memories can sometimes be recovered under optimal conditions
Loftus originally proposed an "overwriting" account: post-event misinformation replaces the original trace, which is permanently lost. However, subsequent research — including studies by McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985), who showed that demand characteristics could partly account for misinformation effects — suggested the picture is more complex. Current consensus tends toward a "coexistence" account: original and post-event traces may both persist in memory, but the misinformation trace is more accessible at the time of testing (due to recency, source confusion, or repeated priming). Under some conditions — such as distinctive retrieval cues or hypnosis — original memories can be partially recovered. Source monitoring theory (Johnson et al., 1993) frames errors as failures to correctly identify the source of a memory, rather than permanent overwriting.
Loftus & Palmer: Eyewitness Memory
In Experiment 1 of Loftus & Palmer (1974), what did participants do and what was the key manipulation?
About this quiz
In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer at the University of Washington published a study that fundamentally challenged the legal and common-sense assumption that memory works like a video recording. In two elegant experiments, they showed that the phrasing of a single question about an event a person had witnessed could alter their memory of that event — including causing them to "remember" details that were never there.
The study launched decades of research on the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and has had profound implications for forensic psychology, criminal justice, and the admissibility of memory evidence in court.