1. what was the overall/final conclusion?
- All of the above
- The ability of participants to recall the features of a man was significantly affected by the unusualness of the object the man was holding
- Both experiments show that weapon focus reduces the detail of witness testimony because attention is narrowed on an object that appears out of context.
- It can be deduced that the poor recall was caused by high unusualness, because if high threat was the main reason, then the scissors would also have resulted in low recall in the first procedure
1 of 20
Other questions in this quiz
2. What changed in the second procedure?
- The items and the location
- Length of video
- The aim
- The man
3. What were the 5 objects the man came in with?
- Scissors, hand gun, wallet, a toy and nothing
- Scissors, Hand gun, Wallet, Chicken and Nothing
- Scissors, machine gun, cheese, a dog and nothing
- Scissors, hand gun, chicken, a knife and nothing
4. One weakness?
- All participants viewed the same footage (apart from the IV changes) for the same amount of time, without any disturbances and then answered the same questions, giving more experimental validity
- There were 2 procedures
- Real witnesses would not see the crime on a video recording, they would have been in the situation itself, this means that distractions and emotions that would have been present in real life and could have affected recall were not available to the pa
- Pickel also employed independent researchers to score and analyse the questionnaire to make sure that there was no researcher bias in the interpretation of the results.
5. How was the first procedure carried out?
- participants are in a park when someone threatens a close group of people with a weapon
- participants shown 2 minute video reconstruction of an incident in a hair salon.
- participants are shown a robbery of a bakery
- Participants waited in a hair salon unknowingly before a man walks in and robs it