Evaluations - A03

• Strength of Loftus - highly replicable as Loftus used range of controlled experiments illustrating different examples of EWT, researchers using identical procedures should produce similar results. Loftus has conducted multiple studies into EWT with similar results thus allows for reliability to be tested.
• Strength of research on EWT - has practical applications for real world where consequences of inaccurate EWT very serious. Loftus' research has shown that leading questions can lead to distortions in memory, strength as it informs interviewers to avoid biased questions when trying to gather information from witnesses - this understanding should help improve accuracy of recall of events. Therefore findings of Loftus research useful as it makes positive contribution to world.
• Limitation of Loftus - tasks used to test misleading questions are artificial, eg used a video of car accident and not the same as experiencing real incident - difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in lab for practical / ethical reasons. Foster et al found that if participants thought they were watching a real life robbery important to a real trial their identification of the robber was much more accurate than if they did not. Problem as real life events often take place unexpectedly and in tense atmosphere recall will be different to lab settings. Thus may lack ecological validity.
• Limitation of Loftus - contradictory evidence, Yuille & Cutshall studied real life situation of shooting outside gun shop in Canada, examined witnesses recall 5 months after incident and asked 2 misleading questions. Misleading questions did not alter accuracy of recall from original statements. Problem as Loftus' research speed of car distorted by verb used, however EWT studied in real life situations have contradictory results thus validity of Loftus methodology and findings reduced.
• Strength of Johnson & Scott - highly replicable as there was control over extraneous variables making it easy to replicate. Strength as using identical procedures produce similar results. Allows for reliability to be tested for thus increases validity.
• Limitation of Johnson & Scott - contradictory evidence, Christianson and Hubinette conducted natural experiment which found emotional arousal may enhance accuracy of memory. Questioned 110 real witnesses to 22 real bank robberies, found witnesses who had been threatened in some way more accurate in recall of details than those who had been less emotionally aroused. Completely opposes J&S findings and shows people good at remembering highly stressful events in real life rather than artificial surroundings, thus reducing validity.
• Limitation of research on EWT - often breaks ethical guidelines, methods used to induce anxiety (e.g. violent film) likely to cause mild harm. Psychologists cannot cause unnecessary harm in research and must gain informed consent from participants. Participants deceived of aim of experiment when giving consent, thus reducing credibility.