For section B unit 2 in the exam-you will have a question which states something like: “With reference to alternative research findings, evaluate/critically assess X’s research”: 12 marks. Mention these in the question using connecting phrases.

Study on eyewitness testimony–Reconstruction of automobile destruction (1974) by Loftus & Palmer

Complementary research findings / Alternative research findings
Loftus & Zanni (1975) showed participants film footage of a car accident. Participants were asked either “Did you see A broken headlight” OR “Did you see THE broken headlight?” People who saw a version of the film with no broken headlight were more than twice as likely to say they saw a broken headlight when asked about THE rather than A broken headlight. This suggests leading questions affect memory in the same way that Loftus & Palmer suggest. The methodologies used by both studies are very similar & have the same strengths of being controlled, precise, and easy to replicate. / Loftus & Palmer state that information given to a witness after an eyewitness event leads to a change of the original memory. BUT Smith & Ellsworth (1987) did a study showing that witnesses just follow the questioner’s suggestions leaving the original memory intact which can be retrieved under appropriate conditions. Thus contradicting Loftus & Palmer.
Loftus (1979) showed participants a set of slides that showed the theft of a large red purse from a handbag, they were then asked to read an account of the theft from an alleged professor of Psychology, the story gave the error that the purse had been brown, it was found that most participants except for 2, correctly remembered that the purse was red. This means, for information that is noticeable, the person who saw the event is more likely to keep their original memory intact. This shows that the original study may have lacked relevance & importance to the p’s & this may have contributed to the differing findings.
Loftus (1975) showed 150 participants a film of a car accident. After, participants were put into 2 groups and each group were asked 10 questions about what they had seen. Gp: 1 were asked questions which linked directly to the film, group 2 were asked all the same questions except for 1 which said “How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the barn when travelling along the country road?” This question was misleading as there was NO barn in the film. After a week, the participants were asked a further 10 questions and both groups were asked “Did you see a barn?” 17.3% of those in group 2 answered YES only 2.7% did in group 1. So the barn had been added to group 2’s memories and now it was being incorrectly remembered as being part of the original event. This is very similar to those who remembered ‘broken glass’ in the original study. / Cohen (1983) criticises eyewitness research as participants are often forced to give YES or NO answers to questions. In real life where open ended questions are used e.g. “What do you think you saw?” eyewitness testimony is more accurate. Koriat & Goldsmith agree (1996) - they found eyewitness accuracy can be dramatically increased if tests do not rely on a forced choice format and if witnesses can give a no answer if unsure. This suggests that Loftus & Palmers results do not reflect he real life accuracy of genuine eye witnesses.
Christianson & Hubinette (1993) questioned 110 witnesses who had witnessed between them 22 genuine bank robberies. Some witnesses had been onlookers in the bank at the time; others were bank employees who had been directly threatened. Victims were more accurate in their memories and remembered more detail about what the robbers wore and their behaviour than bystanders. This means people are good at remembering accurately stressful events if they occur to them and in real life.

1