Critical Review On The Reconstruction Of Automobile Destruction

One of the reasons that eyewitness evidence is so unreliable is because human memory is very open to suggestion. In fact, just asking about something can alter our memory. (1) For example, in the 80-90’s, many psychotherapists were

There are several parts to the experiment such as both the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is controlled or changed during the experiment to test the effects on the dependent variable. The dependent variable is tested and measured during the test .A controlled variable is an example for an independent variable would be variable that is held constant throughout the experiment. An example is a theory that could extend a person’s life expectancy. The independent variable is the amount of vitamin given to the subject within the experiment. The dependent variable is the life span

The purpose of this lab was to save a little gummy worm named Sam from drowning. In addition, one of the labs key terms was a hypothesis which is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Furthermore, we also learned that an independent variable is a factor that is changed during the experiment. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the factor that is observed or measured during the experiment. To begin with, the experiment the hypothesis formulated was if we reshape the paperclips into hooks and pick up sam, and the lifesaver (without touching them), then the lifesaver would be stretched enough for Sam to go through it.

Eyewitness testimonies are based on a person’s ability to recall what took place accurately. Memory research has proven that a person’s memory is not a recording but it is reconstructive. Loftus and Palmer’s study set out to prove that the memory could be reconstructed through the use of language.

In our Penny Lab, we wanted to extend what we were told to do with experimental design. We’re doing this because we wanted to prove what he thought our hypothesis had been, and a hypothesis can not be true unless it can be tested. We investigated what variables made the Penny Lab easier, or harder. As a class we decided to investigate variables like, dropping the penny from the same height, and applying the same pressure to the penny for each drop. But first we had to know what variables were, and which variables we needed to use in the experiment. The variables were, the independent variable, dependent variable, the experimental group, and the control group. We investigated this to show how much water a penny could hold, but we introduced

To investigate the dangers of texting while driving, a true experiment is needed to determine if texting is a cause of traffic accidents. A true experiment is thought to be the most accurate type of experimental research, and it is the only type that can establish a cause and effect relationship. Thus, a true experiment can find if texting is a cause that affects traffic accidents. To begin, the experiment will take place on a major road, located in an urban city because a large number of fatal traffic accidents occur in urban settings, when vehicles are traveling less than thirty miles per hour. Random assignment will be used to select participants, and place them into two equal groups, so the sample size is representative of age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level. Random assignment helps eliminate bias between tech savvy teenagers and older adults, or the use of technology between different ethnicities, or income levels. The experiment will include a control and experimental group, and the manipulated variable is texting while driving. The control group will be instructed to drive through the mapped out course, without a cell phone present in the car. However, the experimental group will drive through the same course, with cell phones that are receiving text messages. The experimenters will have a camera in the car that helps them collect data from the both groups. Each driver will be evaluated on, the number of times they send a text message, the number of

Each year numerous lives are lost due to careless and irrational driving. The disregard for safe driving has been a predicament to the United States of America for years. Many years Police have relied heavily on speed cameras, breathalyzer tests and heavy fines as a deterrent against unlawful drivers. Over the years fatality rates have increased, so the Department of Transportation and Highway Safety has composed a series of safe driving campaigns. On many occasions the Transportation Department informs and advises the public about the importance of responsible driving. They propagate safe driving through the various channels of the media and

After reading “Driving While Stupid,” by Dave Barry, he tells us about some of his experience with seeing bad drivers. Barry uses many old experiences while being in Miami, China, Boston, and Argentina. I agree with this statement because in almost every city I been in the driving was terrible. Everyone, in some way or another, has witnessed people drive very stupid and reckless. Barry indicated that some drivers use insane driving techniques. These include driving very fast, failure of the utilization of headlights at night, and having distractions for the view of the drivers. He says that the drivers do not have a sequence for navigation since some are involved in phone calls, eating, reading, changing CDs, crowd surface makeup, etc. This is a common thing for teens and even adults to be distracted behind the wheel. He drove through various cities where the traffic laws are constantly being violated. For example, has only one traffic law, which is “No driver may ever be behind any other driver.” In his opinion, Miami drivers are the worst drivers that he has ever witness because of the guy who was driving on 1-95. He was watching videos on his phone and was clearly not paying attention to the road or any other drivers. This does not only affect him but also the other people around him. He was not be cautious of the road and putting his and others lives in danger.

The study was experimental because: 1) the researchers did manipulate the independent variables, and 2) Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups.

The Car Crash Study was done in 1974 by Loftus and Palmer that was aimed to test their theory that the language used in an eyewitness testimonies can alter the eyewitness’s memory of the event. They got 45 American students and showed them 7 films of traffic accidents, ranging from 5 to 30 seconds, in a random order. Afterwards the subjects were asked to describe what happened as if they were at the accident. They were then asked more specific questions such as, “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted) each other?’. This was to see if the if the verb used in the question would affect the answers given by the subjects which it did. In the next part of the experiment they showed 150 students a one-minute film that showed a car driving through the country side followed by four seconds of a multiple traffic accident. Afterwards they split the students into three groups and asked them different questions. The first group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”, the second group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”, and the third group was kept as a control group and wasn’t asked anything. One week later they were asked, without seeing the film, ten questions about the film. One question asked “Did you see any broken glass? Yes or No?” which there was none. The results showed that more participants who were asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed?” said

Is our justice system fair? Is our justice system truly set out to do what it was meant to do? Or are there social factors and memory errors that come into play that can change a conviction outcome. In today’s court rooms we have, Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, judges, juries, evidence, forensics experts, witness testimonies, and of course the human memory. What better type of evidence than the human memory, right? Unfortunately, human memory is subject to the power of suggestion and unable to truly recall an event when told to recall. In other words, the story may not be the same as the one that actually happened the day of that event because many variables come into play like cross examinations and the way a question can be asked can alter the answer or how the event was perceived. The main focus of this paper is to see how the human brain is not able to effectively recall events which could possibly convict an innocent person of wrong doing. Also how lawyers use the misinformation effect to their advantage. In order to understand how something as simple as a question can decide a person’s faith we must first answer some questions. First, How does memory actually work and how is memory retrieved when your need to answer a question or being cross examined? Second, how does the misinformation effect play a role when a witness needs to testify against the defense or vice versa? Third, how can structuring a word or sentence effect the outcome of a conviction?

the use of the word "the" suggests there was a broken headlight and therefore the participant goes on to build up a memory for that headlight (Loftus and Zanni 1975). The language used in questioning eyewitnesses may alter what they remember. Loftus and Palmer (1975) showed their participants a series of projector slides of a multiple car accident. The participants then answered specific questions. It was found out that the information implicit in the question affected memory, even though the questions apparently only differed

Procedure - The participants were shown a short film of a multiple car crash, which lasted for one minute, though the action lasted for four seconds. The participants were split into three groups. The first group were asked: How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? The second group were asked: How fast were the cars going when they hit each other? The third group was the control group and were not asked about the speed of the cars. A week later the participants were recalled and asked some more questions about the film. Nine of these were filler questions. The critical question was: Did you see any broken glass? This question appeared randomly in the other question. (There was no broken glass in the film)

a. The study was designed as an experimental research by using independent and dependent variables.

Experiment 1 comprised of Forty-Five students, they were split into groups of various sizes and were shown seven short clips ranging from 5 to 30 seconds of road traffic collisions. Each participant would then receive a questionnaire following each film