255465
| Frage | Antworten |
| Aim for Experiment 1 | To see if weapon focus is due to threat or unusualness |
| Researchers name (date) | Pickel (1998) |
| Participants and Number of Participants | 1230 American University Students |
| Research Method | Lab Experiment |
| Type of Design | Independent Samples |
| Number of Conditions | 5 |
| Length & Setting of Film Clip | 2 mins - Hair salon |
| The 5 items | Scissors, Handgun, Wallet, Raw Chicken, Nothing |
| Length of Filler Task | 10 mins |
| Independent Variable | The item held |
| Dependent Variable | Mean recall of the number of features about the man |
| Mean recall for the 5 items | 8.1, 7.8, 8.5, 7.2, 9 |
| Interpretation of Results | The raw chicken gave the poorest recall |
| Conclusion | Unusualness rather than threat leads to poor memory |
| Generalisability | Large number of students but limited to university students |
| Reliability | Controlled environment - same procedure, allows replication Independent researchers analysed the results |
| Application | Has highlighted the need for the police/courts to be aware of the weapon focus effect |
| Ecological Validity | Ecological validity is low as the participants are prepared for the event - the weapon would have caused no threat |
| Experimental Validity | Participants know they are in an experiment which may cause demand characteristics |
| Aim for Experiment 2 | To check the reliability of experiment 1 |
| Number of Participants (Experiment 2) | 256 |
| The 5 items (Experiment 2) | Screwdriver, Butchers Knife, Sunglasses, Pillsbury Doughboy, Nothing |
| Mean recall for the 5 items (Experiment 2) | 6.7, 7, 7.8, 6.5, 8.4 |
| Interpretation of Results (Experiment 2) | The raw pillsbury doughboy gave the poorest recall |
| Conclusion (Experiment 2) | Weapon focus diminishes recall. The reason for this is the narrowing of attention on an out of context object |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.