AQA-Psychology- Memory

Johnshon and scott studied the effects of what on EWT?

Johnson and Scott conducted the study with two anxiety conditions, High and Low, what happened in each condition?

Johnson & Scott: In which condition was it easier to identify the man?

Johnson & scott concluded that paticpants fixated on the [blank_start]weapon[blank_end], this is known as '[blank_start]tunnel theory[blank_end]' or '[blank_start]weapon focus[blank_end]'. Therfore they were [blank_start]less[blank_end] able to identify the man holding the knife. in cases where a weapon is present, EWT is likely to be [blank_start]less[blank_end] reliable.

Johnson & Scott Evaluation: Participates may fixate on weapons because of the [blank_start]supprise[blank_end] rather than the idea of the weapon being [blank_start]threating[blank_end] itself. Pickel observed the same effects when a [blank_start]raw chicken[blank_end] was in a hairdressers

Yuille and Cutshall studied the effects of anxiety on EWT, What was the real life event they studied?

Yullie and Cutshall studied 13 out of the 21 eye witnesses from the event. How long after the original event did Yullie and Cutshall interview the Orginal EW?

How was the accuracy determined of the eye witnesses testimony determined? And How did Y&C measure the stress of the EW at the time of the shooting?

The Yerkes Dobson law is a theory that show people with very low and very high [blank_start]anxiety[blank_end] are not [blank_start]effective[blank_end] eyewitnesses. People who have a [blank_start]medium[blank_end] level of anxiety are alert enough to [blank_start]pay attention[blank_end] but no so anxious they do not get [blank_start]fixated[blank_end] on the particular aspects of the event.

What did Loftus and Palmer's study the effect on EWT?

Loftus and Palmer study involved showing participants a video clips of a lorry and car colliding

Yuille and Cutshall found more detail than the police when they interviewed Eyewitnesses

Yuille and Cutshall found eyewitnesses were [blank_start]reliable[blank_end] and not [blank_start]manipulated[blank_end] by the researchers. The eye witnesses were not [blank_start]inaccurate[blank_end], unlike those in [blank_start]lab studies[blank_end]. The [blank_start]misleading[blank_end] questions had little or no effect on recall [blank_start]disagreeing[blank_end] with Loftus theory

What were the key strengths of Yuille and Cutshall study?

Yuille and Cutshall's study has a weak scoring system what is another weakness of their study?

Loftus and Palmer found that leading questions were biased of the EWT of the event. The verb '[blank_start]contacted[blank_end]' resulted in an estimated speed of [blank_start]31.8mph[blank_end] compared to the verb '[blank_start]smashed[blank_end]' the estimated speed was [blank_start]41.5mph[blank_end]. This showed that the more [blank_start]violent[blank_end] the verb, the [blank_start]faster[blank_end] the car was estimated to be going.

Loftus and Palmer concluded that eyewitness testimony could be manipulated by the wording of questions. This shows it is possible to prompt a response where people can be lead to a false answer, even though memories were not altered

What are the Key evaluation points for Loftus and Palmers study?

What was the aim of Gabbert's study into EWT?

Gabbert's sample consisted of 60 students from the university Aberdeen, and 60 adults from the local community. The participants watched a video of a [blank_start]girl stealing a wallet.[blank_end] Participants were tested individually ([blank_start]control group[blank_end]) and in pairs ([blank_start]co-witness group[blank_end]), the co-witness group were told they watched the same video however they the had watched different videos of the same crime. Only one had witnessed the girl stealing the wallet. Participants in the co-witness group [blank_start]discussed[blank_end] the crime together. All of the participants answered a [blank_start]questionnaire[blank_end] on the event

What were Gabbert's findings?

What did Gabbert conclude from her study into the event of post event discussion of EWT?

What is a strength of Gabberts study?

What are two weaknesses of Gabbert's study?