evaluation

• positive-

  • christianson and hubinettes research is high in ecological validity and mundane realism
• Negative-

  • christianson and Hubinettes research is low in internal validity
  • johnson and scotts research lacks ecological validity
  • johnson and scotts research may not be due to anxiety but surprise
• • One strength is that christianson and hubinettes research is high in ecological validity and mundane realism.
  • This is because its a natural experiment and was conducted in a real life setting.
  • For example witnesses were both bystanders and bank clerks who were directly impacted.
  • This means that the research can be generalized to real life eyewitnesses
• • one weakness is that Christianson and Hubinettes research lacks internal validity.
  • This is because the IV cannot be deliberately manipulated. For example we can't determine the difference in anxiety levels between the witnesses due to the distance in proximity to the robber.
  • This means we cannot establish cause and effect
• • one weakness is that Johnson and Scott's research lacks ecological validity.
  • This is because it was conducted in a lab and the participants in the waiting area were probably anticipating for something to happen.
  • Additionally, Christianson and Hubinette's research, which is ecologically valid contradicts Johnson and Scotts research
  • This means that it doesn't represent real life cases of extreme anxiety
• • one weakness is that Johnson and Scott's research may not be due to anxiety.
  • The weapon focus affect may be a result of shock. Pickel conducted an experiment where a man walked into a hairdresser holding either scissors, a wallet, handgun or a raw chicken. Accuracy was the worst with the unexpected items such as the wallet and raw chicken.
  • This shows that the weapon focus effect may be due to surprise and not anxiety.