1. Why might the students chosen to partcipate in the study be weakness
- They may not have fully grasped the concept of this experiment and so may have wanted to sabotage it
- They may not have been drivers themselves and so their estimate may not have been informed and so are likely to to be representative of many others within this circumstance
- They can't read or write properly and so the answers given arent likey to have been legible forcing the researchers to make up the results
- They're young and so are naive and may not know what to say
1 of 20
Other questions in this quiz
2. How long did the pps go away for before returning to answer more questions?
- 1 month
- 2 weeks
- 1 week
- 8 days
3. What was concluded from the experiment?
- The form of a question can affect a witness's answer
- That staged and non-staged collisions result in dramatically different speed estimates
- That interviews aren't necessarily an effective way of gathering data
- That interference tasks are effective in demonstrating the capacity of the short term memory
4. Why was the gathering of quantative data from the estimates of speed a strength?
- They didn't have to look at it through a magnifying glass to read the pp's messy handwriting
- It meant that they didn't have to interpret all of the data in a subjective way meaning their study had increased objectivity
- It meant that they could enter it straight onto the computer with ease rather than having to type each statement made within the questionnaires
- They were able to gather reliable subjective data that would be able to be analysed in a biased way
5. What did they conclude from this second experiment?
- That broken glass was not a good device in terms of leading on the pps.
- That the pps had bad memories
- That even after a week the phrasing of a question can still affect the answer given, through recostructive memory and poor questionning techique
- That even a week later when the pps could have thought about their response, they sitll answered incorrectly