Question

In 1974, Loftus and Palmer conducted a classic study demonstrating how the language used to ask a question can influence eyewitness memory. In the study, college students watched a film of an automobile accident and then were asked questions about what they saw. One group was asked, "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" Another group was asked the same question except the verb was changed to hit instead of smashed into. The smashed "group reported significantly higher estimates of speed than the hit group. Suppose a researcher repeats this study with a sample of today college students and obtains the following results.

Estimated Speed
Smashed into Hit
N = 15 n = 15
M = 40.8 M = 34.0
SS = 510 SS = 414
Do the results indicate a significantly higher mean for the smashed into group? Use a one tailed test with a - .01.

Answer 1

Elizabeth Loftus's study demonstrated how language affects memory recall, leading to false memories through the misinformation effect. A fictional follow-up study with results showing different average speed estimations would require statistical analysis to determine if the differences are significant.

Step-by-step explanation:

Elizabeth Loftus's eyewitness memory research, specifically her 1974 study with John Palmer, has had a lasting impact on our understanding of memory and the misinformation effect. To investigate whether language can influence memory of an event, participants were shown footage of car accidents and asked to estimate the vehicles' speed using different verbs, such as 'smashed' or 'hit'. Those who heard 'smashed' reported higher speeds, and in a further test one week later, they were also more likely to incorrectly remember seeing broken glass, showcasing how suggestive questioning can lead to false memories.

In a hypothetical replication study with today's college students reporting average speeds of 40.8 and 34.0 for 'smashed into' and 'hit' respectively, a one-tailed statistical test at an alpha level of .01 would determine if these results indicate a significantly higher mean for the 'smashed into' group. The calculation requires analyzing the sample sizes (N = 15 for both groups), means (M = 40.8 for 'smashed into', M = 34.0 for 'hit'), and sum of squares (SS = 510 for 'smashed into', SS = 414 for 'hit') to compute test statistics such as the t-value, compare it against the critical value from the t-distribution, and draw conclusions about the hypothesis stating that 'smashed into' elicits higher speed estimations.