Strengths and weaknesses of the area

Question 1

Strength-1

Answer 1

• Useful in providing practical applications, improving or changing professions
• Loftus and Palmer- impacted forensic psychology and EWT. To improve EW and avoid using leading Q to avoid producing inaccuarte and unreliable evidence + more successful criminal convictions
• Grant et al- people learn more if the env they learn the info is same as the one they recall in- student scan use this during exams by matching their env to the one of the exam hall
• Moray et al- importance of road safety and not dividing your attention when driving by e.g. phones
• Simons and Chabris- to avoid inattentional blindness when driving e.g. by focusing on your phone rather than the road

Question 2

Strength-2

Answer 2

• Most research into the area is scientific due to use of lab exp as it controls EVs, increasing internal validity & establishing cause and effect
• Loftus & Palmer- All Ps were asked the same Qs, even the critical leading Q- standardised so more reliable + cause & effect of leading Q affecting answers
• Grant et al- All Ps wore headphones, given same article, given same Qs, time taken to read article and break were all standardised, controlling EVs

Question 3

Weakness-1

Answer 3

• Most research lacks ecological validity due to use of lab exp, so highly controlled artificial setting, lacking mundane realism so low in population validity and lacks generalisability
• Moray- In exp 1 a list of words was played repeatedly to the rejected ear, they were all fed info via headphones and BG noise was blocked- this isn’t behaviour that people are exposed to in their everyday life so doesn’t reflect audio attention in a real life setting and results can’t be generalized.
• Simons and Chabris- in an actual basketball match Ps wouldn’t see a gorilla walking on the court so wouldn’t experience inattentional blindness + didn’t test behaviour in serious situation as Ps are more likely to pay attention to surroundings so wouldn’t experience inattentional blindness
• L & P- Ps were expecting to watch a vid clip and answer Qs on it. Irl Ps wouldn’t expect a car accident & factors like anxiety or age could affect memory retention and result in inaccurate judgement + asked qs a week later- may display DC

Question 4

Weakness-2

Answer 4

• Reductionist as it ignores biological or social factors impacting behaviour + reduces human activity to computer levels ignoring emotions/feelings.
• Simons and Chabris- 46% failed to notice unexpected event but ignores that it was an IMD so individual differences like eye sight or learning disabilities could impact whether the unexpected event was seen
• L & P- Reduces behaviour to impact of leading q instead of considering impact on memory retention and how order effects could have impacted their answers
• Grant- only focuses on mismatching and matching conditions and effcet of noise on retention, ignoring factors like personal motivation, time given to retain, nature of topic
• Moray-assumes our attention can be redirected with a simple cue e.g. name, ignoring factors like tiredness and ability to multitask