anxiety - evaluation

Question 1

Johnson and Scott’s study may test surprise not anxiety

Answer 1

• Ps may focus on a weapon because they are surprised at what they see rather than because they are scared
• Pickel (1998) used scissors, handgun, wallet, and raw chicken as hand-held items → EWT accuracy was poorer for high unusualness (chicken and handgun)
• So, the weapon focus effect is due to unusualness rather than anxiety/threat

Question 2

Field studies lack control variables

Answer 2

• Many things happen to the witnesses that they cannot control before the interview e.g. post-event discussion
• These extraneous variables may be responsible for the
  (in)accuracy of recall, not anxiety

Question 3

Demand characteristics may affect lab studies of anxiety

Answer 3

• As the Ps knew they were about to take part in a lab study, they may had guessed that this unusual scene was a part of the experiment

Question 4

ethical issues - psychological harm

Answer 4

• Creating anxiety in Ps is potentially unethical because it may subject people to psychological harm purely for research purposes
• So real-life studies are beneficial
• johnson and scotts = ppts were deceived about the nature of the experiment = they werent protected from harm
• ppt were exposed to a bloodied knife = extreme feelings of anxiety = emotionally stressed and anxious

Question 5

The inverted-U explanation is limited because it is too simplistic

Answer 5

• The inverted-U explanation assumes that physiological physical arousal is linked to poor arousal when there is emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and physical arousal in anxiety
• The explanation fails to account for other factors e.g. the emotional experience of witnessing a crime (terror, fear) on the accuracy of memory

Question 6

Yuille and Cutshall’s research is supported by Christianson and Hubinette (1993),

Answer 6

who showed 110 victims who had been directly threatened during 22 genuine bank robberies were more accurate and detailed in their recall than bystanders