Practical

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

-To investigate whether there are differences in the number of ppts who respond correctly and incorrectly when asked a leading question about identification compared to a non leading question on identification in EW recall

Question 2

IV (operationalised)

Answer 2

-The 2 questions ppts were asked
-Non leading: what was the police officer holding
-Leading: which hand was the police officer holding the magnifying glass in

Question 3

DV (operationalised)

Answer 3

-Memory recall
-The number of people who said correct (notepad and pen) and incorrect (anything else) responses for the leading question compared to the number of people with the non-leading question

Question 4

Was the experimental hypothesis one tailed or two?

Answer 4

-One

Question 5

What was the experimental hypothesis?

Answer 5

-There will be significantly more incorrect answers to the leading question (in which hand was the police officer holding the magnifying glass) compared to those who had the non-leading question (what was the police officer holding)

Question 6

What was the null hypothesis

Answer 6

-There will be no significant difference between the number of correct and incorrect answers to the leading question compared to those who had the non leading question. Any change is due to chance factors.

Question 7

Sample

Answer 7

-Student sample
-Opportunity
-22 ppts

Question 8

Why use opportunity sampling?

Answer 8

-Don’t need to counterbalance

Question 9

What design?

Answer 9

-Independent measures
-Witness only get one chance to see crime
-Randomisation (first 10 to walk through door get leading qus - prevents experimenter bias)

Question 10

Control of extraneous variables

Answer 10

-Silence, prevents mis-info effect
-Distraction task to prevent rehearsal, all psych students. lowers dc
-Mixed in leading qu with other qus, less likely to recognise. lower dc.

Question 11

Ethics

Answer 11

-Absurd video abt crime
-Very staged
-Reduces harm
-Short - most crimes quick

Question 12

Standardised procedure

Answer 12

-22 college students 17-18
-Watch 2 1/2 min whodunnit video clip of an investigation of who committed a murder
-Wrote down what they remembered
-5 question questionnaire after to all as general qus.
-Distraction task of reading article
-2nd qu with leading and non-leading qu with other general qus (was butler wearing a hat)
-Did not talk at any point

Question 13

What were the results?

Answer 13

Leading qu: 5 correct, 6 incorrect
Non-leading: 6 correct, 5 incorrect

Question 14

Which stats test?

Answer 14

Chi-squared

Question 15

Reasons for the stats test

Answer 15

-Nominal data
-Independent measures
-Test of difference (cause and effect)

Question 16

How to work out the chi-squared test?

Answer 16

-Expected value= (Row total x column total) divided by overall total
-Observed value = original number in the box
-O-E squared
-Divide by expected

Question 17

How to work out the df value?

Answer 17

-number of roles - 1
number of columns minus 1
-times together

Question 18

Conclusion

Answer 18

-Accept null hypothesis
-Doesn’t follow trend of prev research
-Leading qu did distort memory

Question 19

Generalisability

Answer 19

-Unrep sample, 22 psych students from kedst, 17-18. can’t be gen to other age groups. may be more motivated - psych students. use diff age range sample and professions

Question 20

Reliability

Answer 20

-Standardised proc.
2 min 30 vid, who dunnit, asked to write what they could recall, qus, distraction, leading qus. Can replicate and test reliability of EWT findings
-Yuille and Cutshall supports; leading qus little impact. no broke headlight. supports. not sig results (those without leading got more right)

Question 21

Applications

Answer 21

-Witnesses and victims: LQ’s don’t impact recall. Witnesses won’t hesitate to come forward. Trust account. Can be used in investigations

Question 22

Validity

Answer 22

-small sample. 22. decreases v as anomalies.
-low MR. vid of whodunnit clearly staged. qu not interview. not emotionally engaged. no conseq. not accurate red of EWT
-High MR: write down everything then 5 specific qus. similar to police interview as ask to recall
-High control ext v’s. staged murder. 2 min 30. know what police was holding. can compare and make sure acc guessing

Question 23

Ethics

Answer 23

-no harm: staged murder. no distress. inc risk DC, may not be useful
-Consent: opp sample, all asked if wanted to withdraw. Informed consent. but dc may be high as know aims.

Question 24

credibility

Answer 24

-high: obj, numerical. no. of correct and incorrect. no experimenter bias.