Skip to content

Course home

Memory

Memory

EasyMediumHard
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788899091
Question 64

Collision investigation at suburban intersection

A local police department is reviewing its interviewing techniques after a disputed traffic incident involving a delivery van and a cyclist.

Immediately following the collision, two groups of witnesses were interviewed separately. The first group was asked: "How fast was the delivery van going when it smashed into the cyclist?" The second group was asked: "How fast was the delivery van going when it contacted the cyclist?"

Members of the first group estimated the speed to be significantly higher (averaging 42 mph) than those in the second group (averaging 28 mph), despite CCTV footage indicating the van was travelling at approximately 30 mph. Furthermore, when interviewed a week later, several witnesses from the first group falsely recalled seeing shattered windshield glass on the road, even though the van's windshield remained completely intact throughout the incident.

Based on a local traffic safety report.

Using the report above, identify one way in which leading questions can distort eyewitness memory, as demonstrated by Loftus and Palmer. Support your answer with evidence from the report.

[3]
Markscheme

Memory Questions

  1. A Level
  2. /Psychology
  3. /Memory

163 exam-style questions on OCR A Level Psychology Memory, covering Loftus and Palmer (1974): Eyewitness testimony and Grant et al. (1998): Context-dependent memory. Each one has a worked solution and a mark scheme showing where the marks go.

Question bank