Our memory in effect shapes our reality and this is the basis of Elizabeth Loftus’ research. In her experiment she selected a random assortment of people and subjected them to footage of a car crash. She then asked a variety of questions relating to the speed of the vehicles before the incident. From this, Loftus concluded that the speed the participant thought the vehicle was going changed depending on the way the question was phrased. For example, when she asked, “how fast was the car going when the two cars smashed?” the participants gave a much higher speed than when the question was phrased, “how fast was the car going when the two cars collided?” This research created a lot of skepticism over the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and since then DNA testing has found a lot of convicted felons to be innocent.
Then, we were to research at least an article to back up our hypothesis. Once we had all the information from there we figured out which distraction causes more accidents and it was texting. Materials phone car person Hypothesis Our hypothesis is we believe texting causes more accidents than talking on the phone. Null Hypothesis Our null hypothesis is we believe that both texting and talking while driving cause the same amount of accidents. What type of measurable data will you collect?
Outline and evaluate research into the effect of misleading information on the eyewitness testimony. The dictionary definition of misleading information is – Any wrong or misleading information given to the insurer, which may affect underwriting decision. Loftus (1975) experimented the effects of misleading information by showing participants a video clip of a car accident then later splitting the group in half. The first group were asked the simple question “How fast was the white sports car going while travelling along the country road?” This was obviously the controlled question. Others were asked the misleading question “How fast was the white car going when it passed the barn while travelling along the country road?” After a week followed all participants were asked “Did you see the barn?” 17% of the participants asked the misleading question claimed they had seen the barn but only 3% of the other participants said that the barn actually existed.
After each film the participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about it. There was one critical. This question was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ One group of participants were given this question. The other five groups were given the verbs smashed, collided, bumped or contacted in place of the word hit. The mean speed estimate was calculated for each group.
If the participants identified themselves as stalking victims, there were then asked a series of questions related to their stalking experience. Out of the 788 students; 65%=female; 35%=male; 75%= white students, and most students were between the ages of 18 and 25 and 85%
Loftus and Palmer 1. In the study by Loftus and Palmer, the subjects were shown film clips of car accidents. Identify two differences between witnessing these film clips and witnessing a real accident and, for each difference, say how this might effect the results of the study. [4] 2. In the study by Loftus and Palmer on eyewitness testimony, the subjects gave different estimates of the speed of the cars depending on how the question was asked.
This suggests that high anxiety situations have a negative impact on EW identification accuracy. In the second one he considered the recall of culprits and scene details. He found that details were correctly recalled by 64% for low anxiety conditions compared to 52% for high anxiety conditions. This shows that high anxiety reduces the ability to identify details of a crime. Also, we have to consider that eyewitnesses victims of a violent crime will register more the situations that pose a treat to them, like the criminal’s weapon.
Procedure: Forty-five American students formed an opportunity sample. This was a laboratory experiment with five conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant (an independent measures design). Participants were shown slides of a car accident involving a number of cars and asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses. They were then asked specific questions, including the question “About how fast were the cars going when they (hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted ) each other?” Thus, the IV was the wording of the question and the DV was the speed reported by the participants. A week after the participants saw the slides they were asked “Did you see any broken glass?” There was no broken glass shown in the slides.
Kipshakbaev Meiram IS 16.309 Driverless Cars Purpose: Show all of the readers both sides of coin which called “Driverless car”. Introduction Have you ever thought that you will be able to sit in a driver’s seat during travel and not to hold the helm? It sounds unrealistic, but it is possible now. You can unwind and entrust everything to your car. The majority of accidents are caused by driver error and what if that could be diminished if the cars that we drive, drive themselves?
Red is frequently used to symbolize anger, aggression or intense passion. Some car insurance companies even charge more for red cars because studies show that the owners of red cars are more aggressive drivers and take more risks. The colour black represents the lack of, emptiness, night, death and even the negative or evil. The