1.The study ran for several weeks during the semester. About a week after it started, the university announced that they would be holding training sessions for faculty and staff about how to handle situations involving a gunman on campus. This shut down the study for several days as the university needed the lab building for training. The study then resumed according to script after the training. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did not differ in their memories regarding the presence of a gun compared to those in the control condition. That is, the mean score that a gun was present was similar for the experimental group (M = 65%, SD = 11.4%) and the control group (M = 63%, SD = 13.26%).

a.Maturation

b.Regression to the mean

c.Selection

d.Mortality

e.Instrumentation

f.Testing

g.History

h.Interactions

i.Diffusion

j.No Threat

1.The experiment proceeded as normal, with the experimental group hearing about the potential presence of a gun as the confederates left the study and the control group not hearing about the gun. All participants returned on day two for the interview with the police detective. After debriefing, none of the participants said they were aware that the theft was staged. The researchers found that those in the experimental group did incorporate the gun misinformation into their memories of the theft more than those in the control condition.That is, the mean score that a gun was present was much higher for the experimental group (M = 67%, SD = 12.4%) than the control group (M = 33%, SD = 11.16%).

a.Maturation

b.Regression to the mean

c.Selection

d.Mortality

e.Instrumentation

f.Testing

g.History

h.Interactions

i.Diffusion

j.No Threat