PMT

Psychology Factsheets
www.curriculum-press.co.uk Number 64
Two key studies: Loftus and Palmer (1974)
and Cairns and Lewis (1999)
This Factsheet covers two key studies in cognitive psychology which are both concerned with memory. The studies are:
• Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) investigation of the effect of leading questions on eyewitness memory.
• Cairns and Lewis’ (1999) examination of memory for a salient event and how such memories link to psychological well-
being.

For both of these studies, you need to know:

(i) specific details about the research - can you describe the basic aims, procedures, findings and conclusions?
(ii) points of evaluation of the research – can you discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

1. Loftus and Palmer (1974)

In their 1974 research article, Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer report their research into eyewitness testimony. They conducted two
experiments to examine how recall from memory can be affected by the way a question is phrased. They used leading questions (see
glossary). Their research is based on the idea of reconstructive memory.

Aim: The aim of their two experiments was to examine whether the phrasing of a question influences recall of an event.

Experiment 1
Procedure:
They conducted a laboratory experiment which used a between-
participants research design. They recruited 45 participants (in
various size groups). The participants watched films of traffic
accidents (7 films, from 5-30 seconds long). The films were
presented in differing orders to each group. Participants then
recalled what they had seen and completed a answered a
questionnaire. The questionnaire contained a series of questions
which included one ‘critical’ speed question. In the critical
question, one word was changed so that the different groups of
participants had different words. The critical question was
“About how fast were the cars going when they [hit] each
other?” The word ‘hit’ was changed to ‘smashed’, ‘collided’,
‘bumped’ or ‘contacted’. The independent variable (IV) was the
verb used (smashed, collided, bumped, contacted, hit). The
dependent variable (DV) was the speed estimate.
Findings:
The highest mean speed estimate was for the word ‘smashed’
(40.8mph) and the lowest mean speed estimate was for
‘contacted’ (31.8mph) (p<0.005).
Conclusions:
Loftus and Palmer concluded that the way a question is phrased
can affect recall from memory (as measured by the speed
estimates). They propose two alternative explanations for this:
(i) the participants may not be sure if the speed is 30mph or
40mph and the verb ‘smashed’ simply biases them to respond
with the higher estimate; or (ii) the question causes a change in
their memory; they may ‘remember’ details that did not occur.
They test this explanation in experiment two.
Experiment 2
Procedure:
They conducted a laboratory experiment using a between-
participants design. They recruited 150 participants (in various
size groups). The participants watched a film of a multiple car
accident (the film lasted less than one minute long). They then
completed a questionnaire which asked them to describe the
accident in their own words and to then answer some questions.
The questions included the critical speed question: 50
participants asked how fast cars going when ‘smashed’; 50 asked
how fast when ‘hit’; and 50 were not asked a speed question
(control). One week later, the participants were asked ten
questions. A randomly placed critical question asked “Did you
see any broken glass?” (yes/no answer). There was no broken
glass, but it is the type of detail that is expected with a high
speed accident. Loftus and Palmer expected participants to say
yes more often with the word ‘smashed’ than with ‘hit’. The IV
was the critical question; the DV was whether the participants
recalled seeing broken glass.
Findings:
The mean speed estimate was higher for the word ‘smashed’
(10.46mph) than for the word ‘hit’ (8mph) (p<0.05). The probability
of saying yes to the question “Did you see any broken glass?”
was greater for the word ‘smashed’ than for the word ‘hit’.
Conclusions:
Loftus and Palmer (1974) found that the phrasing of a question
does influence eyewitness memory. They propose that two types
of information go into memory: one from the perception of the
original event and one from external information supplied after
the event (e.g., a leading question). These two types of
information merge over time, so that we experience one ‘memory’.
Overall, this research shows that eyewitnesses’ memory can be
inaccurate as people can distort their recall (speed estimates) or
add information to their recall (e.g., broken glass).

1
 PMT

64 - Two key studies: Loftus and Palmer (1974) and Cairns and Lewis (1999) Psychology Factsheet

1. Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Exam Hint: Remember that an evaluation of a study does not just involve its weaknesses (negative criticisms), it can also include its strengths
(positive criticisms). For example, a positive criticism is that Loftus and Palmers’ research is controlled well.

Evaluation:
Positive criticisms:
• This study was very well controlled. Examples of good control include; in experiment one, the films were presented in differing
orders to each group; and in experiment two, one group of participants (the control group) were not asked the critical ‘broken glass’
question.
• Such good control over variables is possible as the research was conducted in a laboratory. Doing this research in the outside world
would increase ecological validity but it would then lack such control over all variables.
• They limited confounding variables well. For instance, order effects were controlled for by presenting the films to each group in a
random sequence.
• The research is of use in everyday life. The findings show that memory is easily distorted, which has implications for the use of
eyewitness testimony in police statements and in courts. The evidence shows that leading questions can bias an eyewitness’
answers.
Negative criticisms:
• The research has low ecological validity as it was conducted in a laboratory. There would be differences between seeing a car
accident on film and seeing it in real life (e.g., other distractions, high emotional involvement).
• Confounding variables, such as demand characteristics, may have affected the findings (e.g., the participants may
have worked out the aim of the research).
• As the participants were all students, the findings may lack generalisability; students may not be representative of the
population as a whole.
Exam Hint: The examiners state that many students criticise Loftus and Palmer’s research for using leading questions. This is an incorrect
criticism! Loftus and Palmer deliberately use leading questions; they are not a confounding variable.

Exam Hint: One criticism of Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) research is that it ‘lacks ecological validity’. While this is true, it is not enough to just
state this without explaining why. The examiners comment that many students use the term ‘ecological validity’ inappropriately; they do not
appear to know what it means. Make sure that you do know what it means and explain why the study lacks ecological validity.

2. Cairns and Lewis (1999)

In their 1999 research paper, Ed Cairns and Christopher Lewis examine collective memory for an event. The event was a
bomb which exploded on 8th November 1987 in Enniskillen (Northern Ireland) when people were gathering for a Remembrance
Day service. The bomb injured 63 people and killed 11. The bomb was set by the Provisional IRA against Protestants.
Cairns and Lewis (1999) focus on the collective memory of people for this event and how the memory of this relates to
mental health.
Aim: Cairns and Lewis aim to investigate (i) how salient a memory is for an event eight years after it happened and (ii) how memories of
the event relate to current psychological well-being.
Procedure: The researchers examined collective memory in two towns; Enniskillen and the neighbouring town of Lowtown. Enniskillen and
Lowtown are about 20 miles and are similar demographically (e.g., both have approximately 50,000 residents, 36% non-Catholics in Enniskillen
and 43% in Lowtown). The towns differ in that Lowtown has experienced little political violence compared to Enniskillen. Cairns and Lewis
selected a quota sample of 282 people. Approximately equal numbers of people were interviewed in each town. They also selected approximately
equal numbers of males/females, Catholics/Protestants and people from the age ranges of 18-33 years, 34-49 years, 50-65 years and 66 years
plus. There were no differences between samples from the two towns in terms of gender, age or religion.
All interviews were conducted by male and female postgraduate students, on the same day, in Enniskillen and Lowtown. The participants
were asked to take part in a study about ‘the sort of things people remember about the past’. Amongst other things, they were asked to
mention two ‘Northern Irish’ events over the last 50 years that they felt were especially important. The researchers noted any reference
to the Enniskillen bombing. The participants then completed a 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). The GHQ
measures a person’s current level of psychological wellbeing.
Findings: It was found that relatively few people (68 out of 282) included the Enniskillen bomb as an important event. The majority who
did mention it were from Enniskillen (82%). More Protestants regarded the bomb as a memorable event and most of those Protestants
were from Enniskillen. Protestants who mentioned the bomb, and people living in Lowtown who mentioned the bomb, had significantly
higher scores on the GHQ (a higher score indicates poorer psychological health).
Conclusions: More people from Enniskillen and Protestants remember the bomb as a memorable event. Cairns and Lewis propose that
widespread discussion promotes collective memories and these people would be the most likely to talk about it, thereby making the
memory more distinctive and more likely to be recalled as an important event. Protestants who mentioned the bomb, and people living
in Lowtown who mentioned the bomb, had poorer psychological health. This research highlights the complex interactions between
memory, mental health and politics in a community.
2
 PMT

64 - Two key studies: Loftus and Palmer (1974) and Cairns and Lewis (1999) Psychology Factsheet

2. Cairns and Lewis (1999)

Evaluation:
Positive criticisms:
• This study supports other research. Cairns and Lewis propose that when an event has consequences for a particular
group, it is better remembered by them. This is in line with Brown and Kulik’s (1977) finding that black North American
people had a higher incidence of flashbulb memories for the assassination of Martin Luther King compared to white
North Americans. Likewise, people from higher social classes were found to have clearer memories of Mrs Thatcher’s
resignation (Gaskell and Wright, 1997).
• The quota sampling method has the advantage of being representative of the population because each population
subgroup appears in the sample.

Negative criticisms:
• Cairns and Lewis acknowledge that a limitation of the study is that it did not test the actual memory for the Enniskillen bomb. As
such, it is difficult to know whether people failed to recall the bomb or if they just did not mention it when asked to list important
events. Cairns and Lewis propose that the finding that relatively few people mentioned the Enniskillen bomb may have been due
to the timing of the study, which took place during the ceasefire.
• It is difficult to sort out cause and effect between the level of psychological well-being and memory. It may be the case that poor
mental health causes people to remember negative events rather than vice versa.
• As the findings are from one sample on one day, they may not generalise to other samples and times.

Exam Hint: The examiners comment that many students can describe the studies at length but they only provide a very brief
evaluation. This will mean that they lose valuable marks. Your evaluation should be as detailed and complete as your description.
Make sure that you know the strengths and weaknesses of the studies as well as you know what the study did and found.

Example Exam Questions

Glossary
‘Describe the procedure of one study by Loftus and Palmer and
Collective memory
give one criticism of the study’.
Memories shared by a group or culture. Collective memories are
a social aspect of memory; they are shaped by individuals
This question is asking you to do two things. First, you need to
interacting with each other.
outline a procedure used by Loftus and Palmer. Second, you need
to provide a criticism. Both parts are equal, so make sure that you
Leading question
provide as much detail about the criticism as you do for the
A question which implies something. For example, asking “Did
description. The procedure is described in this factsheet. Be careful
you see the car?” rather than “Did you see a car?” suggests
that you do know exactly what was done. Also, do make sure that
that a car was present when there may not have been one.
you answer the exact question being asked! The examiners comment
that students often write about findings, rather than procedure,
Quota sampling
and so on. Doing so will not gain any marks. The criticism can be
In quota sampling the population is divided into representative
taken from any points of the evaluation mentioned in this factsheet.
groups (e.g., subgroups such as males/females, those under/
Remember that a criticism can be a positive one (a strength), not
over 35 years of age) from which quotas are taken. The quotas
just a weakness of the research.
are obtained in proportion to appearance in target population.
For example, if 40 per cent of the population is male, then the
References sample will also be 40 per cent male.
Cairns, E. and Lewis, C.A. (1999) Collective memories, political
violence and mental health in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Reconstructive memory
Psychology, 90, 25-33. Bartlett (1932) proposed that memory is not just a passive ‘tape-
recording’ of what has happened. Instead, it involves actively
Loftus, E.F. and Palmer, J.C. (1974) Reconstruction of automobile trying to make sense of information by fitting it in with what is
destruction: An example of the interaction between language and already held in memory. That is, a memory is ‘reconstructed’ by
memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behaviour, 13, 585- actively piecing it together using existing knowledge.
589.

Acknowledgements: This Psychology Factsheet was researched and written by Amanda Albon.
The Curriculum Press, Bank House, 105 King Street, Wellington, Shropshire, TF1 1NU.
Psychology Factsheets may be copied free of charge by teaching staff or students, provided that their school is a registered subscriber. No part of these
Factsheets may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any other form or by any other means, without the prior permission of the
publisher. ISSN 1351-5136

3
 PMT

64 - Two key studies: Loftus and Palmer (1974) and Cairns and Lewis (1999) Psychology Factsheet

Worksheet: Two key studies: Loftus and Palmer (1974) and Cairns and Lewis (1999)
Name
1. What did Loftus and Palmer (1974) aim to investigate?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Complete the table of details of Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) experiments.
Experiment 1 Experiment 2
What research method was used?
What research design was used?
What was the independent variable?
What was the dependent variable?
What was the critical question(s)?

3. Explain how and why they used leading questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Give a strength and a weakness of their research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What did Cairns and Lewis (1999) aim to investigate?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What was their sampling method and what research method(s) did they use?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. What did they find?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Give a strength and a weakness of their research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------