misleading information evaluation

Question 1

Name one evaluation point

Answer 1

Braun et al in 2002 helped Loftus conduct a study involving the cut out of Bugs Bunny. Participants were asked to be involved in an advertising campaign for Disney which involved Bugs Bunny ( who is not a disney character) and Ariel (who had not been around during their childhood) they found out that participants claimed that they had shaken hands with the two of them more than the control group

Question 2

name another evaluation point

Answer 2

Foster 1994 found that participants who were engaged in a real life robbery were more likely to, although their responses influenced the trial. Were more likely to accurately identify the robber
Yullie and Cutshall in 1986 found that after a robbery took place in Canada eye-witnesses were able to accurately identify the robber without being susceptible to misleading information
Loftus and Palmer’s research can be critiqued in a sense that it has low ecological validity due to its experimental condition residing in a lab
Participants are aware that the stimulus is not real and do not have the same emotional arousal in the real world

Question 3

Name a third evaluation point

Answer 3

Schater et al 1994 found that elderly people in comparison to the younger generation made more mistakes in relation to eyewitness testimony even though their memory was not impaired
There are two things that influence memory, the event itself and the influence of suggestions i.e misleading information
This shows that individual differences are an important factor for eyewitness testimony

Question 4

Name a final evaluation point

Answer 4

Wells and Olson in 2003 found that eye-witness testimony was the largest contributor to the conviction of innocent people
Psychological research has been used to warn the justice system of problems with eyewitness testimony identification evidence
Recent DNA exoneration evidence has confirmed the warnings of eyewitness identification by researchers by showing the mistakes of eyewitness’
Wells and Olson in 2003 found that eyewitness identification was the largest contributor to the conviction of innocent people.