6. 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.

7. What were the 5 objects the man came in with?

Took part in a interview
Randomly told the researchers details about the receptionist and the man, what he was holding and what they thought he was doing in the salon
Filled out a questionnaire requiring them to remember details about the receptionist and the man, what he was holding and what they thought he was doing in the salon.
Asked leading questions

Has highlighted the need for the courts/police to be aware of the effects of video's of crimes
Has highlighted the need for the courts/police to be aware of the effects of weapon focus
Has highlighted the need for the courts/police to be aware of the effects of leading questions
Has highlighted the need for the courts/police to be aware of the effects of filler tasks between witness of crime and the statement

To see if people will be obedient to an authority figure
To examine if weapon focus just effects recall when the participants are part of the event
To examine the effects of weapon focus on EWT when the unusualness and threat of the object changes
To examine the effects of leading questions on EWT

The findings are essentially identical to the 1st experiment, the doughboy and knife were unusual in the context of an electrical repair shop and produced the poorest level of recall.
The findings are essentially opposite to the 1st experiment, the doughboy and knife were unusual in the context of an electrical repair shop and produced the best level of recall.
The findings are essentially identical to the 1st experiment, the sunglasses and being empty handed were unusual in the context of an electrical repair shop and produced the poorest level of recall.
The findings are essentially identical to the 1st experiment, the doughboy and knife were unusual in the context of an machine repair shop and produced the poorest level of recall.

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
The ability of participants to recall the features of a man was significantly affected by the unusualness of the object the man was holding
All of the above
Both experiments show that weapon focus reduces the detail of witness testimony because attention is narrowed on an object that appears out of context.

The handgun and raw chicken resulted in the lowest recall, while the scissors and wallet had less of an effect. It can be deduced that the poor recall was caused by high unusualness
The handgun and raw chicken resulted in the lowest recall, while the scissors and wallet had less of an effect. It can be deduced that the poor recall was caused by high threat
The handgun and knife resulted in the lowest recall, while the scissors and chicken had less of an effect. It can be deduced that the good recall was caused by high unusualness
high threat is the only cause of the low recall and therefore proves weapon focus is something to be aware of

The participants conducted a filler talk
There was a lot of control over extraneous variables, this improves experimental validity and reliability
The researchers wanted to test threat and unusualness, but it is unlikely that participants watching a video tape felt any threat.
It was conducted in 1998