AbstractThisInternal Assesment is a replication of the original study conducted by Loftusand Palmer in 1974. The aim was to investigate whether INTRODUCTION:Cognitive psychology talks about thefunctions and the structure of the human mind in which it can be conceptualizedby several different processes such as; perception, thinking, language, problemsolving, attention, and memory. Memory is the term given to the structures and processes involved inthe storage and subsequent retrieval of information. Memory definition bypsychologist with reference(https://www.simplypsychology.
org/memory.html)It is impossible to learn something new if wedid not have memory, therefore, memory is very essential for our dailylives. A renowned psychologist Bartlettsays that people reconstruct the past by trying to fit it into existingschemas. Cognitive schemas are defined as a network of knowledge, beliefs, andexpectations about particular aspects of the world. The reconstructive natureof memory add in details that were not a part of the original event.
Researchers of eyewitness testimony, Loftus and Palmer have supported Bartlett’s theory that memoryis reconstructive. In their study, their aim was to showcase that certain misleadingquestions can distort and eyewitness’s memory. Details of the study I chose to replicate this study as it wasfascinating to learn that we as human beings cannot completely rely on memory,due to the fact that it is reconstructive. My aim is to investigate the effectof post event information on memory. My research hypothesis is that the estimatedspeed would be significantly higher when the verb “smashed” is used than whenthe verb “hit” is used. METHOD:DESIGNThe design used for this study wasindependent sample design.
This design makes use of 2 different groupsof participants.It was selected in order to avoidparticipants getting bored or tired with the experiment. Also with this designit is less likely for participants to guess the hypothesis of the study. The independent variable was the verb in theleading question used i.e. either “smashed” or “hit” and dependent variable wasthe estimated speed. The participants gave their written consentand all the ethical guidelines were followed. PARTICIPANTS:The target population were students of AmityGlobal School Gurgaon, India.
A sample of 20 participants were selected throughopportunity sampling as it was convenient and less time consuming. They werefrom the grades 11 and 12 and ranged within the age groups of 16-18 years. Since the participants are studying in an Internationalschool, they are multicultural and multilingual.Materials:- Letter of Consent- Debriefing Notes- Standardised instructions- 20 sheets of paper containing the questions- Video clip taken from a youtube link ProcedureThe20 participants were separated into 2 different groups, each with 10participants. Each group was called inside a room and were shown the video of acar crash.
After watching the video, they were given slips of paper with twoquestions about the video. One of the questions was the independent variablewith the verb either “hit” or “smashed”. Once the participants answered thequestions the slips of paper were collected back. They were reminded of theirright to withdraw from the experiment if they wanted to.
Finally, all theparticipants were thanked for their cooperation and were debriefed about thestudy. RESULTS:Table1: Depicting the mean value and SD of the estimated speeds of the two groups. “Hit” group Speed Estimate km/hr “Smashed” group Speed Estimate km/hr MEAN 58.8 79.4 STANDARD DEVIATION 20.
384 15.785 Themean of all the results for the estimation of speed for “hit” was 58.8 and 79.
4for “smashed”. The results for standard deviation for the “hit” group was20.384 and for the “smashed” group is was 15.785. Graph1: Depicting the variation of results from the misleading questions on thespeed estimation of the car accident.