Outline and Evaluate Research Essay

umteen eyewitnesses be called to testify because they have witnessed a crime, accident or incident. The anxiousness if this may cause an affect on the reliability of their EWT. There are two main issues in this question firstly the prediction of the Yerkes Dodson law that as arousal increases, then so does performance weather spotting, full stop performance, or memory encoding, up to an individual best level. However, after this optimum level it is suggested that the performance of the individual depart decline, this could be triggered by terror. This scheme was supported by Deffenbacher et als research. The second issue is the weapons cogitate effect In Easterbrooks research he predicted that attention will narrow to the source of the threat e.g the knife the man is holding so peripheral detail is lost e.g the details of the perpertrators face. This was supported by Loftuss laboratory studies in an artificial environment using picture and slides, using independent groups design, where a control conditions showed the participants a similar picture without weapons.In the first group they had a scene which they believed to be a real life rough crime involving a weapon, results showed that the participants remembered the knife in great detail but no other features, such as the perpetrators face clothing etc. However the participants in the control conditions witnessed the same person but only in a peaceful situation and the participants were able to recognise the man when given 50 photos. When we examine real life eye witness testimony conceive however, on that point is excellent mobilize of detail, and the weapons- revolve about effect was not supported. Yullie and Cutshall (1986) conducted a inborn experiment on 13 out of 21 bystanders who had witnessed a violent shooting 4-5 months previously. There recall was detailed and accurate and they were resistant to in the lead questions months after the event.Therefore, this suggest that bystanders had reached the optimum level ( Yerkes Dodson Law) when they they witnessed the death of the robber who had previously wounded the proprietor in Vancouver gun shop before the owner killed him. Weapon focus did not influence witness recall. Therefore we essential to examine witnesses to the violent crime who faced a weapon rather than a bystander to confirm the effect of weapon focus shown by Loftus. The inwrought experiment conducted by Christanson and Hubinette (1993) in Sweden re-interviewed 58 witnesses (customers and bank tellers) to bank robberies that occurred about Stockholm in one year. Those witnesses who faced the weapon (banktellers) they had better recall and accuracy of the event after a period of time rather than the bystanders. Optimum arousal is suggested but weapon focus is challenged.The ecological asperity of this evidence is high although the participants cannot be randomly assigned to the experiment and there is no control condition as there would be in a laboratory experiment. However, Laboratory experiments lack the intense arousal of a real crime so the supposed weapons effect may be the effect of distinct and unexpected events distracting participants to the unusual element in the familiar. A strong point of Loftuss field experiment and supports the weapon focus effect is that it has ecological validity and comparison to the control condition tender strong support. A criticism is the inability of researchers fro randomly allocate participants in this study to experimental and control conditions to control individual differences.