CAUSED PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM
HOW WAS DECEPTION JUSTIFIED ?
DECIEVED PARTICIPANTS
WHY MIGHT THE STUDY LACK VALIDITY?
WHAT HAS HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF PEOPLES UNDERSTANDING OF INACCURATE EWT?
THE RESEARCH HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE DANGERS OF EWT ,HOW?
PARTICIPANTS COULD NOT GIVE FULL CONSENT, SO WHAT DID THEY GIVE?
HOW HAS LOFTUS AND PALMER HELPED WITH IMPROVING SAFEGUARDS IN THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM?
THE RESEARCH HAS ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS- HOW MUCH COULD IT SAVE THE UK ECONOMY BY IMPROVING THE SYSTEMS? ££££££££££££££££££££
PARTICIPANTS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE FULL AIMS OF THE STUDY E.G. ASSESSING THE USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS ONF ACCURACY OF RECALL.
7.7 % OF THE UKS GDP ON RETRIALS!!!
THEY GAVE PRESUMPTIVE CONSENT -
Watched a video of a film of a car accident .
THERE WAS ONLY MILD DECEPTION WITH LIMITED PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM. DONE TO AVOID DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPROVE THE I VALIDITY OF THE STUDY.
