Presentation on theme: "EVALUATING LOFTUS (1979) ‘THE WEAPON EFFECT’ EVALUATING LOFTUS (1979) Methodological Issues Sample Issues Ethical Issues Any problems with the."— Presentation transcript:
EVALUATING LOFTUS (1979) ‘THE WEAPON EFFECT’
EVALUATING LOFTUS (1979) Methodological Issues Sample Issues Ethical Issues Any problems with the method (procedure) of the study e.g. the tasks they had to do or where the study was carried out. Did the psychologist adhere to the code of ethics? Are there any problems with the sample. STARTER: Think back to last lesson where you examined Loftus (1979) ‘The Pen & Knife Study’. Write one bullet point for each of the following issues (Remember – Issues can be positive or negative, in relation to Loftus (1979).
EVALUATING RESEARCH Methodological Issues Sample Issues Ethical Issues Her study was artificial, why? Thus, we say it lacked ecological validity. May have caused distress to participants when they saw the blooded knife-protection from harm. Participants were all from America. Thus, we say her sample lacked population validity. Ethnocentric sample.
TODAY’S LESSON 1.To apply the three evaluation ‘issues’ (methodological, sample and ethical) to Psychological research. 2.To examine evidence that contradicts Loftus’s results and draw conclusions on the effect of anxiety on EWT. Yuille and Cutshall (1986) Rinolo et al. (2003)
TO APPLY THE THREE EVALUATION ‘ISSUES’ (METHODOLOGICAL, SAMPLE AND ETHICAL) TO PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Learning Objective 1
YOUR TURN TO EVALUATE IN GROUPS… 1) Summaries your study – aim, method, result and conclusion (in less than 100 words). 2) Evaluate your study using the headings… Methodological issues Sample issues Ethical issues Use your notes and text books to help you Table 1 - Bower’s study Table 2 - Milgram's study Table 3 - Peterson & Peterson’s study Table 4 - Miller’s study Table 5 - Bahrick’s study 20 minutes
TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS LOFTUS’S RESULTS AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS ON THE EFFECT OF ANXIETY ON EWT. Learning Objective 2
LOFTUS (1979) “If you are involved in a robbery or a victim of a mugging where weapons are involved, you are very anxious and focus solely on the weapon thus become a less accurate eye witness” BUT some evidence suggests otherwise…
YUILLE & CUTSHALL (1986) A real life case study by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) contradicts the effect of anxiety & weapon focus in influencing eyewitness memory.
YUILLE & CUTSHALL (1986) They found that witnesses of a real life incident (a gun shooting outside a gun shop in Canada) had very accurate memories of a stressful event involving weapons. The police interviewed witnesses 5 months after event and recall was found to be accurate.
RINIOLO ET AL., (2003) How might Psychologists have used the Titanic to investigate Eye-Witness Testimony…
RINIOLO ET AL., (2003) Task: Read the abstract of Riniolo et al., (2003) and summarise the aim, method and results (IN YOUR OWN WORDS). Then answer the following question: What can we conclude about the accuracy of EWT in relation to anxiety? 4 minutes
RINIOLO ET AL., (2003) Riniolo examined eye witnesses statements from survivors of the sinking Titanic in 75% of the very anxious eyewitnesses who gave testimony at the time had reported that the titanic snapped into 2 as it sank. No one believed them and thought their memories were inaccurate because of their anxious states, until the wreck was discovered in
WHAT DOES THIS SHOW? There are real-life cases where memory for an emotional / stressful event is accurate, even some months later. Contrary to lab research, “weapon focus” does not always have a detrimental effect on recall.
EXAM QUESTION Outline and evaluate research investigating the effect of anxiety on the accuracy of EWT? Task: In pairs, use a mini-whiteboard to plan this essay. What will you include in your AO1 (knowledge section)? What will you include in your AO2 (evaluation section)?
USE THE BURGER METHOD WHEN YOU EVALUATE… State your evaluation issue: For example, the study lacks ecological validity. Relate issue to the study: For example - It lacks EV because the study is carried out in a lab, not the participants natural environment, so they may have acted differently to real life. For example, watching a crash via a screen is different from seeing a crash in real life. Say why the issue is strength or weakness: For example, you can not apply the results to real life situations Top Bun The real meat! Bottom Bun
HOMEWORK Evaluate Riniolo et al., (2003) and Yuille & Cutshalls (1986) study using the key terms: Methodological issues Sample issues Ethical issues