arks> - **AO1**: Explains mechanisms of PED, such as memory contamination (misinformation combined with original memory) or memory conformity (normative/informational social influence) B1 - **AO1**: References key research, such as Gabbert et al. (2003) finding that 71% of participants who discussed an event with a co-witness mistakenly recalled unseen details B1 - **AO2**: Applies PED to the scenario, identifying the discussion when the witness "chattered with other bystanders waiting at the bus stop" B1 - **AO2**: Applies memory contamination/conformity to the scenario where her memory of a "bright red SUV" changed to a "dark blue hatchback" and she notes she was "influenced by what they said" B1 - **AO3**: Evaluates research methodology, highlighting high control in lab experiments (establishing cause-and-effect) versus low ecological validity (lack of emotional arousal or real-world consequences) B1 - **AO3**: Evaluates research by discussing real-world applications, such as police protocols designed to isolate witnesses immediately to prevent PED B1 - **AO3**: Provides further evaluation, such as individual differences (e.g., age of witness) or the use of cognitive interviews to counter contamination B147:T75a,- Outlines the procedure of Johnson and Scott's (1976) study (e.g. low-anxiety pen condition vs. high-anxiety bloody paper knife condition) B1 - Outlines the findings of Johnson and Scott's study (e.g. 49% accuracy in the low-anxiety group vs. 33% accuracy in the high-anxiety group) B1 - Outlines the procedure of Yuille and Cutshall's (1986) study (e.g. 13 witnesses to a real-life gunshop shooting interviewed 4-5 months later) B1 - Outlines the findings of Yuille and Cutshall's study (e.g. high overall accuracy, with the high-stress group being 88% accurate compared to 75% for the low-stress group) B1 - Explains how the Yerkes-Dodson Law / inverted-U hypothesis accounts for these contradictory findings by proposing that moderate anxiety optimizes performance B1 - Explains that anxiety levels above or below the optimal point result in poorer recall B1 - Evaluates methodological differences, such as the low ecological validity of lab experiments vs. the high ecological validity of real-life field studies A1 - Explains the limitation of lack of control over extraneous variables (e.g. post-event discussion or media coverage) in real-world studies A1 - Discusses the ethical issues of lab-based studies, specifically the protection of participants from psychological distress/harm A1 - Critically assesses alternative explanations, such as Pickel (1998) demonstrating that weapon focus may be due to surprise/unusualness rather than anxiety/danger A1 - Discusses individual differences (e.g. personality traits) that affect how anxiety influences memory, rendering the inverted-U hypothesis overly simplistic A1 - Communicates ideas in a clear, coherent, and logically structured manner C148:T512,- Describes **mental reinstatement of original context** where witnesses mentally recreate the physical and psychological environment of the event B1 - Describes **reporting everything** where witnesses are encouraged to include every detail, however minor, to act as retrieval cues B1 - Describes **reversing the order** of recall to prevent schema-based expectations and chronological guessing B1 - Describes **changing perspective** to access different retrieval pathways by imagining the event from another bystander's view B1 - Discusses the limitation of **time and resource constraints** in real-world policing, making full cognitive interviews impractical under pressure M1 - Evaluates the **high training demands** and cost required for officers to deliver the techniques effectivel

Eyewitness testimony

Question 10

Eyewitness testimony Questions

Eyewitness testimony

Question 10

Eyewitness testimony Questions