Reconstruction of Automobile
destruction
Elizabeth F. Loftus and John C. Palmer
(1974)
Please read the title and look at
the picture
Try to remember both
Curtains in a window
Bottle
Crescent moon
Beehive
Eye-glass
Seven
Ship’s wheel
Hour glass
Kidney bean
Pine tree
Gun
Two
Please read the title and look at
the picture
Try to remember both
Diamond in a rectangle
Stirrup
Letter “C”
Hat
Dumbbells
Four
Sun
Table
Canoe
Trowel
Broom
Eight
Please draw as many of the
pictures as you can
• Please write ‘1st group’ or ‘2nd group’ on
your paper
Experiment
• Please hand your drawing to a member of
the other group
• Check to see whether the drawing looks like
one of a pair of objects
Curtains in a window or Diamond in a rectangle
Bottle or stirrup
Crescent moon or letter “C”
Beehive or hat
Eye-glass or Dumbbells
Seven or Four
Ship’s wheel or Sun
Hour glass or Table
Kidney bean or Canoe
Pine tree or Trowel
Gun or Broom
Two or Eight
Reconstruction of Automobile
destruction
Elizabeth F. Loftus and John C. Palmer
(1974)
Theory
• People are not good at reporting numerical
details, such as time, speed and distance
(Bird 1927).
• Marshall (1969) found that participants
gave speed estimates ranging between 10
and 50 mph for a car travelling at 12mph!
Theory
• (Block 1974) Because people are poor at
estimating they can be easily influenced by
questioning, for example. In courts of law
leading questions can not be asked.
• Fillmore (1971) found that the words `hit'
and `smashed' could affect the estimated
speed.
Experiment 1
Method
• 45 students in groups of various sizes
• Would the results generalise?
• Are they just trying to please their teacher?
7 films from the local safety
council and police
• 5 - 30 second film clips, of car accidents.
• Not really like a real accident, therefore lacks
ecological validity
• After a written account of each accident was
given by each student, a series of questions was
asked.
• The critical question was one about the
estimated speed of the vehicles.
Experiment 1 - Method
• What was the purpose of the written
account?
• Did this affect the results?
• Loftus & Palmer fail to report any details of
what was written
• What data could have been obtained from
these accounts?
Experiment 1 - Method
• 5 groups of 9 students.
• Group sizes rather small
• Between 15 and 20 in each group is usually
sufficient
• Each group had a different version of the
critical question.
Experimental Conditions
• 1. About how fast were the cars going when they hit each
other?
• 2. About how fast were the cars going when they smashed
each other?
• 3. About how fast were the cars going when they collided
with each other?
• 4. About how fast were the cars going when they bumped
into each other?
• 5. About how fast were the cars going when they contacted
with each other?
Independent Variable
• Different wording of the questions
Dependent Variable
• Speed estimates
Experiment 1 - method
• The time taken to conduct the experiment
was about one hour and a half.
• Films were presented to the participants in
different orderings
Experiment 1 - Results
Verb Mean speed estimate (mph)
Smashed 40.8
Collided 39.3
Bumped 38.1
Hit 34.0
Contacted 31.8
Experiment 1 - Results
• These differences are significant at p is less
than 0.005.
• This means that less than five in every
thousand times this experiment is run could
the results possibly be owing to chance
factors
• As chance results are unlikely we reject our
null hypothesis
Experiment 1 - Hypothesis
• It is predicted that there will be a significant
difference between speed estimates
depending upon the verb used in the
question about speed.
• This is known as a two-tailed experimental
hypothesis because we are just predicting a
difference without saying which verb has
the greatest effect on speed estimation.
Experiment 1 - Did the actual
speed of the cars affect the
estimate
Actual speed (mph) Mean estimates (mph)
20 37.7
30 36.2
40 39.7
40 36.1
Experiment 1 - Discussion
– 1. The participant is not sure of
the speed so the verb provides the
answer.
– 2. The verb changes the memory
representation.
The results of experiment 1
suggest a research question for
experiment 2.
– If the memory representation is
changed then we might expect the
participant to ‘see’ other things that
were not actually there.
Experiment 2 - Method
• 150 students were shown a film of a multiple car
crash
• The film lasted one minute, but the action was
just 4 seconds long.
• Three groups of 50 students were used.
• All students were asked to give a written
description of the car accident
• A series of questions was asked
Experiment 2 - Critical questions
One group was asked: `About how fast
were the cars going when they smashed into
each other?'
The second group was asked `About how
fast were the cars going when they hit each
other?'
The third group were not asked about the
speed.
One week later
• The participants returned
• They did not see the film again
• They were again asked a series of ten questions
about the film
• The critical question was “Did you see any
broken glass?”
• The participants checked a box labelled ‘yes’ or
a box labelled ‘no’.
Experiment 2 - Method
• The critical question appeared randomly in
different positions
• There was no broken glass in the film
Experiment 2 - Results
Verb Mean Estimated speed
mph
Smashed 10.46
Hit 8.00
Significant at p<0.05
Experiment 2 - Results
Verb condition
Response Smashed Hit Control
Yes 16 7 6
No 34 43 44
Significant at p<0.025
Probability of saying that there
was broken glass
Speed estimate (mph)
Verb condition 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20
Smashed .09 .27 .41 .62
Hit .06 .09 .25 .50
The verb ‘smashed’ affects speed estimate in a way that lies beyond
saying that because ‘smashed’ suggests the cars were going fast when
they crashed there must have been glass.
Experiment 2 - Discussion
• Over time, perhaps, we are unable to tell the
difference between information processed
during perception and information received
later.
Implications
• If eye witnesses are so inaccurate then we
must not allow a person to be convicted just
on the basis of an eye witness report.
• Leading questions in court should also be
avoided.
Criticisms
• Lacks ecological validity - not a real crash,
paying attention
• Participants - students, young and intelligent,
eager to please their lecturers
• Demand characteristics - they knew they were
being studied
• May not be memory but just guess work based
on information supplied
