Yuille And Cutshall Evaluation

Question 1

Evaluate in terms of ecological validity.

Answer 1

High in ecological validity because it followed a field study design and assessed the testimony of real witnesses to a real crime, instead of assessing participants in an artificial experiment.

Question 2

Evaluate in terms of reliability.

Answer 2

The findings were reliable because of the precise scoring procedure, which could be repeated to get more reliable results. Also, the data was quantitative.

Question 3

Evaluate in terms of applications to real life.

Answer 3

It allowed psychologists to challenge laboratory findings as the accuracy of the witnesses and the lack of effect leading questions has upon recall supports the criticism that laboratory studies lack ecological validity since the findings of such studies appear not to generalise to witnesses of real crimes.

Question 4

Evaluate in terms of subjectivity.

Answer 4

The scoring system converted qualitative data to quantitative data so subjectivity is present. Eg, two people may have been feeling the same level of stress but to one person that might be rated a 5 whereas to another that might be a 7.

Question 5

Evaluate in terms of validity.

Answer 5

Low validity as although the researchers aimed to measure EWT, they may have actually been testing flashbulb memory instead which are vivid and accurate memories associated with key emotional events.