In Loftus and Palmer's (1974) investigation into reconstructive memory, Experiment 2 was specifically conducted to distinguish between two competing explanations for the speed estimation findings of Experiment 1.
Which of the following correctly identifies these two explanations, and explains how the results of Experiment 2 supported one over the other?
The explanations were response-bias and genuine memory representation change. The finding that the 'smashed' group was significantly more likely to falsely recall seeing broken glass a week later supported memory representation change.
The explanations were retroactive interference and proactive interference. The finding that the 'hit' group reported significantly more broken glass than the control group supported retroactive interference.
The explanations were demand characteristics and experimental realism. The finding that the control group reported seeing no broken glass at all supported the demand characteristics explanation.
The explanations were cue-dependent recall and trace decay. The finding that the 'smashed' group recalled higher speed estimates a week later supported the trace decay explanation.
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.