AS Psychology- Memory- EWT- Research

Peters, 1988

• What did he research?
• How did he do it? Decribe the experiment carried out.
• What was found?
• What did it suggest?
• Why was it good? One positive evaluation point.

Christianson et al, 1993

• What was their study?
• What did they find?
• Why was this a good piece of research?
• Who else found similar results?
• What did they do?

Peters, 1988

• The inverted-U model for the effects of aniexty on EWT
• Visit to a nurse who gave an injection, researcher saw them for same time. A week later, they were asked to identify both nurse and researcher.
• Identification of the researcher was far more frequent than that of the nurse.
• Heightened anxiety due to the injection led to a decrease in recall.
• It was ecologically valid- getting an injection happens in real life.

Christianson et al, 1993

• A survey of 110 witnesses to 22 real-life bank robberies, some bystanders, some threatened.
• Found that victims subjected to greater anxiety showed more detailed recall.
• It is ecologically valid as they were actual events from real life.
• Yuille and Cutshall 1986
• Witnesses accurate in reports despite high stress levels associated with a fatal shooting. 

Flin et al, 1992

• What did they research?
• Which groups were used?
• How did they do this? Describe the experiment.
• What did they find? Give the detailed results if possible.
• Give two evalution points: one positive, one negative.

King and Yuille, 1987

• What did they find?

Gruneberg and Morris, 1992

• What did they find?

Flin et al, 1992

• The effects of the passage of time on children's memory.
• Children aged 5-6, 9-10 and adults.
• Staged event involving a nurse giving a talk. Two helpers knocked over a slide, argued and one later apologised. At time intervals of 1 day and 5 months, all participants were given same questions about the talk and event.
• 5-6 year olds able to recall nealy as much accurate detail (66%) after 1 day. After 5 months, accuracy fell to 36 %. But no more inaccurate than others.
• Field experiment- high ecological validity, not randomly allocated- quasi exp.

King and Yuille, 1987

• An interest in the topic causes accuracy equal to that of an adult.

Gruneberg and Morris, 1992

• If the context is reinstated, the accuracy of child recall is as good as an adult.

Loftus and Palmer, 1974

• What did they research?
• What was the experimental design?
• How did they do it? Describe the experiment in detail.
• What were the speed estimates?
• What did it show?
• What was the follow-up study?
• What did it show?
• Give two evaluation points: one positive, one negative.

Loftus and Palmer, 1974

• The use of leading questions and their influence on EWT, estimates of speed.
• Independent groups design.
• 45 students were shown a short film, afterwards given a questionnaire containing a critical question, in which the verb used to describe the car's speed changed. THe verbs used were: smashed, hit (control) bumped, collided and contacted. Witnesses estimates of car speed were recorded in mph.
• Contacted- 31.8, hit- 34.0, bumped- 38.1, collided- 39.3 and smashed- 40.8.
• Shows that the form of question can have a significant effect on a witness's answer.
• Asked participants a week later to state whether or not they saw broken glass (there was none in the actual film shown)
• 14% in control condition said yes, 32% in the "smashed" condition said yes.
• Internal validity- a well-controlled laboratory experiment with and easily controlled IV- therefore easy to replicate.
• Lack of ecological validity- a film shown, not a real-life event.