EVALUATING LOFTUS (1979)
‘THE WEAPON EFFECT’
EVALUATING LOFTUS (1979)
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).
 Methodological 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.
 Sample Issues
 Are there any problems with the sample.
 Ethical Issues
 Did the psychologist adhere to the code of ethics?
EVALUATING RESEARCH
 Methodological Issues
 Her study was artificial, why?
 Thus, we say it lacked ecological validity.
 Sample Issues
 Participants were all from America.
 Thus, we say her sample lacked population validity.
 Ethnocentric sample.
 Ethical Issues
 May have caused distress to participants when they saw the
blooded knife-protection from harm.
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)
Learning Objective 1
TO APPLY THE THREE EVALUATION ‘ISSUES’
(METHODOLOGICAL, SAMPLE AND ETHICAL) TO
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
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
20 minutes
 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
Learning Objective 2
TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS
LOFTUS’S RESULTS AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS
ON THE EFFECT OF ANXIETY ON EWT.
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…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNyKDI9pn0Q
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 1912.
 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 1985.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNyKDI9pn0Q
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…
Top Bun
The real meat!
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.
State your evaluation issue:
For example, the study lacks
ecological validity.
Bottom Bun
Say why the issue is strength or
weakness:
For example, you can not apply
the results to real life situations
HOMEWORK
 Evaluate Riniolo et al., (2003) and Yuille & Cutshalls (1986) study using the
key terms:
 Methodological issues
 Sample issues
 Ethical issues