terrogation 1
Running Head: Interrogation Tactics
Interrogation Tactics: Eyewitness Accuracy as a Function of Setting and
Questioning
Jennifer L. Ross
Honours Psychology Student
Algoma University College
A literature review submitted to the Department of Psychology of Algoma
University College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts.
Interrogation 2
S'fRACT
Is accuracy for eyewitness tes i ony decreased when witnesses are questioned in front of
others, rather than privately? Does the presence of others increase the effect of misleading
questions? Eyewitness memory is placed as the central theme for recollecting accounts of
origin z: events. Inaccuracies and low confidence in the recollections of such events can be
directly linked to external cues, such as the presence of others, type of questioning, etc. The
paper focuses upon these related factors and proves their importance in eyewitness memory
recall. Some of the important research studies stem to include the classics of Loftus (1974)
and Asch (1951), and display a connection to more modern research by Roebers (2000) and
Winningham (2000).
Int.errogation 3
QUESTIONS OF INTEREST?
Is accuracy for eyewitness tes ony decreased when witnesses are questioned in front of
o+hers, rather than privately? Does the presence of others increase the effect of misleading
questions?
Memory is a three-stage process that involves witnesses' acquisition, perception of an
event, storage or putting away of this information and retrieval of this stored information. In
eyewitness testimony certain events can be distorted in such a way that recall may be false.
Memory is assisted through various aspects of imagery that include the conscious forms of visual,
auditory and somatic sensations, yet these assisting mechanisms may be the most destructive to
eyewitness recall. When the mechanisms are manipulated an individual may be a risk of
encapsulating the misinformation effect, where the original -event occurrence becomes distorted.
There are three major areas of research that are covered within this paper stemming to include:
eyewitness testimony and the misinformation effect, eyewitness testimony and confidence and
eyewitness testimony and accuracy.
Eyewitness Testimony and The Misinformation Effect
WHEN PRESENTED WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION about an event they have just
witnessed, subjects are likely to claim in numerous memory tests that this misinformation
occurred in the original event. Elizabeth Loftus, being a pioneer in the field of eyewitness
testimony, demonstrated this effect by the power of the phrasing of a question on witness' reports
interrogation 4
of and memory for events. Loftus (1974) showed a short videoclip of a minor car accident,
immediately followed by a brief question period to a group of subjects. To half of the subjects
she used questioning of the non-leading type to demonstrate its effect. For e.g. Loftus posed a
question such as: How fast was the car going when it hit? The neutral words go and hit was used,
not to mislead the subjects.
The remaining half of the subjects was asked questions of the leading nature that entailed a
specific outcome. For e.g. How fast was the car speeding when the car smashed?
As demonstrated the words speed and smashed led the subjects to believe that the car was
travelling at a high velocity of speed and that the car accident was remembered as being more
severe than what was actually depicted on the video-clip.
Loftus reached two major fmdings in her research. First it was proven that misleading
information affected people's judgements. This can be incorporated into the second major
finding that there is evidence of a misinformation effect. The misinformation effect is where
people tend to believe that false information as occurring in the original event.
The effects of post-event misleading information can distort the memories that
individuals possess by altering and adding scenes. Wright (2001) demonstrated this effect
through inhibition of recall and recognition of scenes through a series of now you see it and now
you don't. Two studies were done involving 268 participants. First participants saw an event
consisting of one of two scenarios either a restaurant scene or drunk-driving incident. After a
brief time period they were shown the same videoclips again without the critical scene, and were
told to do one of two things. For experiment one, the subjects had to create a story. For
experiment two, the subjects had to imagine the event. The final test exposed that this post-event
omission led to fewer subjects reporting the critical scene in the free recall and recognition. Thus
Interrogation 5
demonstrated the effect of inhibition of memory, and how memory is dynamic and occurrences
can become altered and sometimes forgotten.
Vernon, & Nelson (2000) revealed that through exposure to suggestion the creation of
false memories could be created. A short film was viewed by 30 participants, followed by a brief
questionnaire Eight of the nine questions were used as filler, while one question asked the
participants to recall a phrase that one of the character's in the film had said. Twenty-three of the
thirty students reported hearing the main character speak, while simultaneously recalled the exact
phrase that he had said. In fact the main character actually said nothing, proving the impact of
false auditory memories and illustrating the power of suggestion.
Roebers (2000) examined the patterns of the negative impact of misleading post-event
information in two different types of eyewitness interviews. Participants ranging in age from six
to sixty-four, 284 in total were shown a short videoclip of a theft followed by post-event
questioning three and four weeks later. During the three-week question period subjects were
either asked open-end and biased questions or misleading and suggestive questions. This was
followed by a neutral interview one week later where all subjects were asked recognition
questions about the event. Results revealed that regardless of age, all participants exposed to the
misinformation effect answered incorrectly and gave false reenactments of what had previously
occurred.
Later research of Loftus (1979) revealed that memory, unlike a videotape can be altered
by the presentation of new information or external cues from the environment. Her study
presented participants a short film of an automobile accident, followed by a question period. Her
Interrogation 6
participants were divided randomly into two groups. Loftus' first group was asked questions
regarding false information pertaining to the film. For instance the participants were asked 'how
fast the white sports car was going when it passed the barnyard setting?' in the first group, while
the second group was asked the same questions without the mention of the barnyard. There was
in fact no barnyard setting present in the film. Loftus' results proved her curiosity of influential
questioning, because seventeen percent of the participants in the first group mentioned they had
seen a barn in the film compared with a mere three percent in group two. Elizabeth Loftus
concluded that the misinformation effect supported her theory that suggestive questioning may
alter the outcome of the retrieval of previous eyewitness accounts. Her findings showed that new
information through the wording of questions have an extreme influence on the outcome of recall
through the replacement of existing information in the memory. More extensive research by
Loftus (1996) has shown that there is an increase in the error rate due to the plantation of false
memories, or misleading false information. Much like her prior study, the participants were
subjected to false memories and questioned based on these false memories. The majority of the
participants used in this study reported actually experiencing the false memory. This is much in
part due to the type of questioning that was administered, pertaining to the situation. Loftus
concluded that multiple choice questions should be avoided. In this way she felt that accuracy
and completeness could be encouraged.
Eyewitness Testimony and Confidence
Shaw, Lafayette, and colleagues (2001) demonstrated the effect of confidence's role in
the presence of others. Subjects were shown a short video-clip of a robbery followed by a brief
question period to follow concerning the details of what were witnessed in the video. Subjects
Er
rogation 7
were placed into groups of 4 or 5 where they were labeled as being in the private group or the
public group. Those that were randomly assigned into the public group were asked to share their
answers about the details of the video aloud to the group along with their confidence ratings. The
remaining half of the subjects or private groups was told to keep their answers to themselves
along with their confidence ratings. As predicted confidence ratings were reportedly lower in the
public condition than in the private condition. However the privacy condition had no effect on
response accuracy.
The most significant set of debating factors falls within the relationship of accuracy and
confidence. Kebbell and Wagstaff (1996) examined the confidence levels of witnesses. Their
research revealed that a witness's degree of certainty is quite malleable and can be easily inflated.
It was found that the confidence levels could be influenced by external factors that have nothing
to do with the witness's actual memories or perceptions of an event. In their research they staged
a theft for pairs of eyewitnesses, then separately asked each of them to identify the "thief' in a
photo lineup. After the identification process, some of the witnesses were told that their partner
had identified the same suspect and the levels of confidence increased drastically. Witnesses who
were told their co-witness either identified someone else or made no identification expressed less
confidence. Another interesting aspect that was realized was that when the witnesses were
subsequently told about their previous misinformation regarding their co-witness statements, their
confidence levels did not return to their original level. Their research was concluded with a final
thought regarding an eyewitness's confidence that the level should be recorded when the
identification is first made and that many outside influences may affect one's confidence level.
This may stem from the prospect that people tend to strive for peer acceptance no matter the race,
age, or gender.
Interrogation 8
In keeping with this, research proved there was a significant finding of the roles of accuracy and
confidence in the presence of an emotional event. Garcia (1999) reported the effect of eyewitness
memory in an emotional event Vs neutral event. Garcia portrayed an emotional event (argument)
or a neutral event through a live classroom interruption. A total of 44 subjects participated in this
event being either exposed to one of the two stimuli. Results reveal that subjects in the emotional
group recalled and recognized more verbal and visual information, more verbal and visual
actions, and more verbal actions than verbal details. Subjects in the emotional group had overall
better recall, recognition, and confidence than subjects exposed to the neutral event.
Presence of Others — Impact on Accuracy
Asch (1951) had confederates give incorrect answers in a task on which the lengths of
two line segments were compared. Subjects were influenced by the responses made by the
confederates. They gave false answers, which conformed with to the answers given by the
confederates.
The main result that Asch discovered was the people tend to conform with the majority because
of the strive for peer acceptance and influence regardless of the consequence.
People can be falsely encouraged or led to believe that something occurred or is correct when it in
facet is incorrect. Much like the research of Loftus, Asch looked at the effect of leading
information on judgements. Asch's research revealed the social impact of others on accuracy of
responses and raises the question of whether there is a link of confidence as a factor or impact on
the way an individual responds.
Interrogation 9
Hoffman (2001) used a modified version of Asch's classic (1951) conformity paradigm
that studied the impact of social influence on reality monitoring decisions about new items
presented. In Hoffman's study subjects studied pictures of some objects while imagined others.
In a post-event test stage the subject's were asked to judge items as either been imagined, or were
new. For some of the items the subjects were informed of a confederate's response before giving
a judgement.
Winningham (2000) investigated the effects of pressure to report more details on
memories of an eyewitness event. Subjects in this study witnessed a staged event and were
questioned up to 5 times about that particular event. Some of the subjects were pressured to
report more details than others. Results showed that pressuring subjects to report more details
increased the number of accurate and inaccurate statements. The main effect found was that
pressuring subjects to report more details did not change the how confident they felt about how
accurate they answered.
Wright (2000) revealed that post-event information could affect people's memory reports
when delivered by another person through two unique experiments. For the first experiment, a
total of 40 subjects were shown a series of cars, followed by an 'old/new' recognition test on the
cars. The 'old/new' recognition test was done in small groupings of two. There was a small
finding of the effect of memory conformity where the participants were given misinfonnation,
lowering their accuracy, while presentation of accurate infonnation increased the accuracy
reporting. In a second experiment 40 participants, in pairs, viewed an identical crime where one
individual saw an accomplice with the thief while the other individual did not. It was reported
that the initial memory recognition was correct, yet after the discussion of what they had saw,
recognition became flawed. The majority of the pairs conformed and confidence ratings
significantly predicted which person in the pair persuaded the other.
Interrogation 10
Wright (1997) showed First year psychology students a video-clip of Robocop, followed
by a completely off topic lesson plan. Twenty-four hours later the subjects filled out a
questionnaire regarding the movie. Most of the students answered more than half of the items
correctly. The mean number correct was 9.60 items correct out of 14 questions. Many of the
questions on the quiz were based on peripheral details about the crime scene. In support of these
criteria, another research study conducted by Cutler, Penrod, and Martens (1987), peripheral
details were found to be the most emphasizing due to their relation to identification accuracy in
eyewitness testimonials.
Students were bewildered at the average, feeling the number should be higher and were skeptical
to some detail. If this were the case the clip was shown again to point out the details that were
overlooked. This was then contrasted to be compared to a real life setting and the discussion of
the reality of eyewitness identification. Also it was noted that both of the scenarios were
conducted in such a manner that none of the participants had any knowledge to their participation
in such research pertaining to the topic of eyewitness testimony prior to the video-clip, scenario,
or evaluation afterward.
Placement into at-risk situations is used to predict identification accuracy. There are
several ways to demonstrate memory for witness events, through re-enactment of a staged event
to captivate the audience's reactions, where the actors proceed to interrupt the class and students
attempted to identify that person. This was demonstrated by Luus and Well (1994); Moye and
Yarbrough (1992) where their main priority was to determine the number of correct
identifications while putting the students in an unexpected state of mind or stressful manner.
This demonstration has proven effective yet raises ethical concerns for the safety of
traumatic or emotional states that may take rise due to the student's interference to stop the staged
crime. The mean average reported by one particular experiment was five point nine on a likert
Interrogation 11
seven-point scale. However the creation and distribution of videotape were deemed as just as
reliable as a staged event in terms of distinguishing the individual differences that exist in terms
of accurate identification processes. This was administered and scored through the process of a
questionnaire that consisted of multiple choice/true-false questions. One specific experiment
proves the efficiency of such testing in terms of video-clip and questionnaire Support of this
particular experiment also includes the study by Christianson (1992), who believed that some
conditions of stress seem to produce external loci of control and a type of focus which actually
make for better, not worse accuracy and recall.
Life events accompanied by strong negative affect or emotion are remembered with
greater difficulty than events accompanied by less intensity, or valence of the effect. There
appears to be a curvilinear or Yerkes-Dodson relationship between emotion and recall.
Recovered memories of negativity may be developed, yet attitudes toward the memory tend to
remain consistent regardless of the outcome of truth or when faced with the distinction of false
beliefs.
To the contrary, Christianson (1992) believed that overall there was little reason to
believe in the Yerkes-Dodson law since it has been so extensively critiqued regarding eyewitness
applications and may appear to be unwarranted in some cases.
Other accuracy errors may be the direct result of psychological trauma or shock
experienced by the eyewitness. The weapon-focus effect is on of these factors that may influence
the falsifiability of prior events. Research shows that when a suspect pulls out a gun, razor blade,
or knife, witnesses are less likely to identify the culprit than if no weapon is present (Steblay,
1992). According to an experiment that involved showing subjects slides of a customer walking
up to a bank teller and pulled out an unidentified object that was either a gun or a checkbook.
The eye movements of those involved in the study were recorded period that consisted of thirty-
Interrogation 12
two open-ended questions about the film Results show that recall and confidence in recall
accuracy was low and that recall accuracy is reportedly better for central action details than
peripheral. There was no statistical significance was revealed concerning the recall of descriptive
details related to peripheral or central actions.
CONCLUSION
Is accuracy for eyewitness tes ony decreased when witnesses are questioned in front of
others, rather
privately? Does the presence of others increase the effect cf misleading
questions?
Through the research the following questions of interest have been primarily investigated
and some evidence or link has been established. For instance research concerning the
misinformation effect proved helpful and found to have repetitive accurate outcomes. The impact
of confidence in the presence of others had a positive correlation, yet accurate responses in the
presence of others still remains questionable.
Much of the literature tends to support the question of whether external factors contribute
with false memory recall. Overall it can be stated that the mind is a powerful mechanism that
tends to illustrate and captivate what it perceives to be true based on the external encounters or
cues resulting in wrongful convictions, and inaccuracies in reporting of details and confidence.
Interrogation 13
Rii,-4 FERENCES
-1
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of
judgements. H. Guetzkow (Ed.) Groups leadership and men: Research in human
Relations (177-190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of euyewitness
identification. Law and Human Behaviour, 11, 233-258.
Garcia, B. E., & Migueles, M. (1999). Eyewitness Testimony in an emotional Vs neutral event.
Psicologica, 20(2), 91-102.
Hoffman, H. G. & Granhag, P. A. (2001). Social Influences on relaity-monitoring decisions.
Memory and Cognition, 29, 394-404.
Kebbell, M. R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1996). The influence of Item Difficulty on the Relationship
Between Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 653-663.
Lindholm, T., & Christianson, S-A. (1992). Intergroup Biases and Eyewitness Testimony.
Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 710-724.
Loftus, Elizabeth. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology
Today, 87, 116-119.
Loftus, E. F. 91979). Leading questions and eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560572.
Luus, C. A. E., Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability for eyewitness confidence: Co-witness
and perserverence effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714-723.
Moye, T., Yarbrough, N. (1992). Wortman/Lofius Psychology (4 th ed). New York: McGrawHill.
Interrogation 14
Roebers, C. M., & Schneider, W. (2001). Memory for an observed event in the presence of prior
misinformation: Developmental patterns of free recall and identification accuracy. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(4), 507-524.
Shaw, John S., Lafayette Coll, Zen, Tana K., Woyathler, Keith A. (2001). Public Eyewitness
Confidence Ratings can differ from those held privately. Law & Human Behavior, 25,
141-154.
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of weapon-focus effect. Law and Human
Behaviour, 16, 413-424.
Vernon, B. & Nelson, E. (2000). Exposure to suggestion and creation of false auditory
memories. Psychological Reports, 86, 344-346.
Winningham, R. G., Weaver, C. A. (2000). The Effects of Pressure to Report more Details on
Memories of an Eyewitness Event. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 271282.
Wright, D. B. & Loftus, E. F., & Hall, M. (2001). Now you see it; now you don't: Inhibiting
recall and recognition of scenes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(5), 471-482.
Wright, D. B., & Self, G. &, Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation
effects when presented by another person. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 189-203.
Yerkes, R., Dodson, J. (1908). The relation of the strength of a stimulus to rapidity of habitinformation. Journal of Comparitive Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.
thesis.sav
settingq
1.00
typeques
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
14
15
16
17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
18
19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
04/24/03 10:27:42 PM
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
accuracy
10.00
9.00
confiden
27.00
10.00
9.00
12.00
28.00
30.00
29.00
6.00
13.00
10.00
9.00
27.00
26.00
27.00
29.00
10.00
9.00
33.00
28.00
27.00
13.00
11.00
14.00
7.00
10.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
12.00
13.00
12.00
14.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
13.00
13.00
12.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
18.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
13.00
13.00
15.00
2.00
2.00
15.00
14.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
9.00
10.00
9.00
13.00
14.00
26.00
33.00
33.00
22.00
34.00
31.00
33.00
36.00
27.00
41.00
37.00
35.00
41.00
37.00
36.00
30.00
34.00
40.00
39.00
40.00
40.00
33.00
37.00
33.00
1/2
thesis. say
36
37
38
39
40
04/24/03 10:27:42 PM
settingq
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
typeques
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
accuracy
10.00
13.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
confiden
32.00
33.00
38.00
38.00
36.00
2/2
Univari:t1 Analysis of Variance
Eatween-Subjects Factors
SETTINGQ
1.00
2.00
TYPEQUES 1.00 2.00
Value Label
Public
Private
Non-Leading
Leading
20
20
20
20
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: ACCURACY
SETTINGQ
Public
Private
Total
Std. Deviation
1.87380
2.11082
2.08945
2.71825
1.43372
2.17643
2.66112
2.08756
2.44412
Mean
9.8000
11.3000
10.5500
12.5000
13.5000
13.0000
11.1500
12.4000
11.7750
TYPEQUES
Non-Leading
Leading
Total
Non-Leading
Leading
Total
Non-Leading
Leading
Total
N
10
10
20
10
10
20
20
20
40
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: ACCURACY
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
SETTINGQ
TYPEQUES
SETTINGQ *
TYPEQUES
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
76.275a
5546.025
60.025
15.625
1
Mean Square
25.425
5546.025
60.025
15.625
5.841
1274.135
13.790
3.590
Sig.
.002
.000
.001
.066
.625
1
.625
.144
.707
156.700
5779.000
232.975
36
40
39
4.353
df
3
F
a. R Squared = .327 (Adjusted R Squared = .271)
Urnivariate _nalysis of V.___lance
Between-Subjects Factors
SETTINGQ 1.00
2.00
TYPEQUES 1.00
2.00
Value Label
Public
Private
N
20
20
Non-Leading
20
Leading
20
Page 1
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: CONFIDEN
SETTINGQ
Public
Private
Total
Mean
28.2000
30.4000
29.3000
37.0000
36.0000
36.5000
32.6000
33.2000
32.9000
TYPEQUES
Non-Leading
Leading
Total
Non-Leading
Leading
Total
Non-Leading
Leading
Total
N
Std. Deviation
2.14994
4.27395
3.48077
3.46410
3.05505
3.22000
5.31532
4.61804
4.92404
10
10
20
10
10
20
20
20
40
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: CONFIDEN
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept
SETTINGQ
TYPEQUES
SETTINGQ *
TYPEQUES
Error
Total
Corrected Total
Type III Sum
of Squares
547.600a
43296.400
518.400
3.600
df
F
3
1
1
1
Mean Square
182.533
43296.400
518.400
3.600
16.511
3916.257
46.890
.326
Sig.
.000
.000
.000
.572
25.600
1
25.600
2.316
.137
398.000
44242.000
945.600
36
40
39
11.056
a. R Squared = .579 (Adjusted R Squared = .544)
Page 2
Interrogation 1
Running Head: Interrogation Tactics
Interrogation Tactics: Eyewitness Accuracy as a Function of Setting and
Questioning
Jennifer L. Ross
Honours Psychology Student
Algoma University College
A thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology of Algoma University College in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts.
Interrogation 2
ABST
CT. Is accuracy of eyewitness testimony decreased when witnesses are
questioned in front of others, rather than privately? Does the presence of others impact
the effect of misleading questions? First year university students (N=40) viewed a
videotaped murder scene and then answered leading or non-leading questions privately or
in front of 3 confederates who had viewed the same video and were potentially able to
contradict the answers. As predicted, accuracy was significantly lower in the publicanswering group (F=(1, 36) = 13.790, p<. 001). However, no significant differences
were observed for question type (F=(1, 36) = 3.59, n.s.), and there was no interaction
between question type and setting (F (1, 36) = .144, n.s.).
Interrogation 3
This : .:.zrsonal account is the idea 77.1hin
.
-
sri
concept for my thesis idea.
THE SCENARIO: One male and two females entered a clothing tore
and prc xed( 1 to try or nd buy almost everything in sight. They L 1 21
-
-
--
-
-
with a credit card and left. The next day the employees rind out that
the card Cal .vas used was actuality s:
- -
The owner of the credit card
was an elderly man who was beaten upon taking Lis wallet. Two
caployees were told they were going to be questioned by a deect:ve
-
remember the eltaills of the event. They were interrogated 'In one of two
different settings, alone and in front of others. V [ ?rson interrogated
-
-
in frc_i of tL group felt very anxious and &filet: to recall the details
expressing low confidence. That e__ ployee wondered iLia: the others
were thinking, and was embary }seC hat they did not Csa-ss
of the incident to submit the sante story. By now it was too late, the
details i fere colleCed, and many unanswered c -tstions arose.
--
Interrogation 4
QUESTIONS OF INTEMEST?
Is accuracy of eyewitness est )ny decreased when witnesses are
questioned in LILO of others, r "Der than privately?
-
Does the presence of c_:_zrs increase the effect GI ;;, „isleading questL.--s?
-
Interrogation 5
INTRODUCTION
WHEN PRESENTED WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION about an event they have just
witnessed, subjects are likely to claim in numerous memory tests that this misinformation
occurred in the original event. Elizabeth Loftus, being a pioneer in the field of eyewitness
testimony, demonstrated this effect by the power of the phrasing of a question on witness' reports
of and memoiy for events. Loftus (1974) showed a short videoclip of a minor car accident,
immediately followed by a brief question period to a group of participants. To half of the
participants she used questioning of the non-leading type to demonstrate its effect. For e.g.
Loftus posed a question such as: How fast was the car going when it hit? The neutral words go
and hit were used, not to mislead the subjects.
The remaining half of the participants were asked questions of the leading nature that entailed a
specific outcome. For e.g. How fast was the car speeding when the car smashed?
As demonstrated the words speed and smashed led the subjects to believe that the car was
travelling at a high velocity of speed and that the car accident was remembered as being more
severe than what was actually depicted on the videotape.
Loftus reached two major fmdings in her research. First it was proven that misleading
information affected people's judgements. This can be incorporated into the second major
finding that there was evidence of a misinformation effect. The misinformation effect is where
people tend to believe that false information occurred in the original event. Loftus concluded
that memory is unlike a videotape, that it is dynamic and can be readily altered.
Loftus' work fit well with early research reported by Asch. Asch (1951) had
confederates give incorrect answers in a task on which the lengths of two line segments were
Interrogation 6
compared. Participants were influenced by the responses made by three confederates. They gave
false answers, which conformed with the answers given by the confederates.
The main result that Asch discovered was that people tend to confaiin with the majority
because of the strive for peer acceptance and influence regardless of the consequence.
People can be falsely encouraged or led to believe that something occurred or is correct when it in
fact it is incorrect. Much like the research of Loftus, Asch portrayed the effect of leading
information on judgements in his classic study. Asch's research not only revealed the social
impact of others on accuracy of responding, yet raised the question of whether there was a link of
confidence a major impact on the way one responds.
Shaw, Lafayette, and colleagues (2001) demonstrated the effect of an individual's
confidence for accuracy recall in the presence of others. Participants were shown a short videoclip of a robbery, followed by a brief question period that concerned the details of what was
witnessed in the video. Participants were placed into groups of 4 or 5 where they were labeled as
being in the private group or the public group. Those whom were randomly assigned into the
public group were asked to share their answers about the details of the video aloud to the group
along with their confidence ratings. The remaining half of the subjects or private groups were
told to keep their answers to themselves along with their confidence ratings. As predicted
confidence ratings were reportedly lower in the public condition than in the private condition.
However the privacy condition had no effect on response accuracy.
QUESTIONS OF INTE ST?
Is accuracy of eyewitness testimony decreased when witnesses are questioned in front of (Alias,
rather than privately? Does the presence of others increase the effect of misleading questions?
Interrogation 7
METHOD
PALITECIPANTS. The subjects in this study were male and female undergraduate students
enrolled at Algoma University College. A total of forty students participated in this study. The
majority of the students were given a percentage credit for their participation.
TE
LS. The materials needed for the demonstration included a videotape copy of
Anatomy that can be rented at any video store; a 12-question quiz based on the details of the
videoclip, and the memory distracter task.
The videotape clip that was chosen portrayed a murder scene. The videoclip started 18:10 from
the beginning of the movie and lasted approximately 7 minutes in duration. Anatomy was used
because of the unfamiliarity of the actors and the setting, being they were both of German
descent.
The 12 questions consisted of 10 multiple choice questions and 2 short answer. Following each
of the multiple-choice questions was a short confidence rating scale. The subjects had to rate
how confident they were in their answers on a five-point scale. (1= very confident, 3 =50/50, 5=
very unconfident)
There were two versions of the quiz question type: Non-leading or Leading. A sample question
that was used for both versions was:
Type of Question: Non-Leading
How many drinks did the waitress bring to the table?
Type of Question: Leading
How many drinks did the waitress struggle to bring to tLe table?
',errogation 8
A distracter task was used in the time interval that followed the videoclip and prior to the
question period. The distracter task consisted of three logical reasoning style questions. A
distracter task was used to prevent any socializing between the participants and to take the focus
away from the eyewitnessed event. The memory activity tasks can be obtained from the
following website:
http://teach-nology.com/worksheets/critici*_ hinking/logic/12/
Sample Question: The Hotel
Three people check into a hotel. They pay $30 to the manager and go to their room. The
manager finds out that the room rate is $25 and gives $5 to the bellboy to return. On the way to
the room the bellboy reasons that $5 would be difficult to share among three people so he pockets
$2 and gives $1 to each person. Now each person paid $10 and got back $1. So they paid $9
each totaling $27. The bellboy has $2, totaling $29.
Where's the remaining dollar?
EXPE
I
ENTAL DESIGN: The type of design used was a 2X2 between group design. Two
independent variables were manipulated each having two levels and a total of four corresponding
conditions.
Type of Questioning (Non-Leading or Leading) X Setting of Questioning (Private or Public)
TYPE OF QUESTIONING
Non-Leading
Public
TYPE OF SETTING
Private (alone)
Leading
Interrogation 9
PROCEDURE
In a group total of five, students entered a secluded room located in Portable 3 at Algoma
University. Three of the students were upper year or graduating students that were posing as
participants, having knowledge of the experiment. The remaining two participants were
introductory year students that were the true subjects in the experiment. They were seated in one
of five chairs that directly faced a media center that consisted of a television and a VCR. A
memory task was handed to them that consisted of a total of three questions: They were to answer
the questions alone and without any help from the others. This was handed into the experimenter
for evaluation, while she told the group to watch the contents of a brief video-clip. While the
movie played the experimenter left the room to avoid any disruption and returned when it was
complete. A distracter memory task was handed to the group. Upon completion of the distracter
task the results of the memory test from the beginning of the experiment were revealed. Up until
this point all true subjects were treated identically.
TYPE OF QUESTIONING
Non-Leading
Public
TYPE OF SETTING
Private
Leading
Interrogation 10
Half of the true participants were randomly assigned to the Private Condition. In this
circumstance, one of the two true participants was taken into the hallway and told to wait there.
Momentarily another confederate led them down the hall into a room that contained a computer, a
desk, and a chair The participant was instructed to sit down and to answer the following
questions that pertained to the video-clip that they had previously watched.
Meanwhile, the remaining half of the true participants were randomly assigned to the
Public Condition. A participant assigned to this condition was told to sit in a chair at the front of
the room, in front of the other three confederates. The media center that once consisted of a
television and VCR, now was a computer center. The pal ticipant was told to read the instructions
aloud to the group. The instructions stated that they (the true participant) had been chosen to
represent the remainder of the group (3 posing participants) and that they were to answer the
questions accurately and efficiently, yet on behalf of the group with no help from the group.
They were chosen because they were told they received the highest score on the memory test at
the beginning of the experiment. The only catch was that they were in fact not chosen for this
reason but because they were a true subject and that their fate was determined due to their
pad ticipation. They too answered questions of either the leading type or the non-leading type.
During this question period the role of the confederates was to remain silent, but to stare at the
participant and peer over their shoulder. Although the computer screen was extremely vivid
because of the large font and the answers were made evident to the group.
Immediately following this, the true subjects were asked to fill out a three-question
manipulation check, to determine whether performance anxiety was a factor in the public
condition. Debriefing was done in some cases that were necessary through a brief explanation of
the experiment, and peer counseling.
Interrogation 11
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The questions consisted of 10 multiple choice questions and 2 short answer questions and were
scored out of a possibility of 20 points. One point was allotted per correct multiple-choice
question. Five points per short answer question were allotted for answering the correct details of
what the subjects had eyewitnessed.
The means are displayed for the four conditions as follows:
Results for Accuracy:
TYPE OF QUESTIONING
Non-Leading
Public
9.8
Leading
11.3
TYPE OF SETTING
Private
12.5
13.5
There was a significant effect of the type of setting and the accuracy of answering details. F((1, 36) =
13.790, p(.001.)
The public setting proved to be the less effective for accuracy of responses (mean = 10.55), while
the private setting (mean = 13.00) proved to be the most effective setting for remembering the
details of the murder scene.
Interrogation 12
There was no significant reported interaction between setting type and type of questioning used.
F((1, 36) = .144, n.s.).
Results: Question Type: Non-Leading VS Leading
There was no significant reported effect of question type on the accuracy of details. F((1, 36) =
3.590, n.s.). There was no significance reported in my study between non-leading and leading
questions.
According to Elizabeth Loftus there is a definite effect of misinformation or the use of
misleading words as opposed to neutral words that captivate the eyewitness into believing false
accounts of the original event. (Loftus, 19) However in my study I used leading words to direct
toward the correct answer. I helped the subjects achieve the correct answers. For example the
previous example in the leading question type:
How many drinks did the waitress struggle to bring to the table?
a) 4
b) 6
c) 8
d) 5
The subjects were more likely to respond to the answer C that was actually the correct answer.
The word struggle implied that the waitress had a hard time carrying the chinks to the table
implying that she was carrying more as opposed to less.
Interrogation 13
RESULTS: COI1FIDENCE
TYPE OF QUESTIONING
Non-Leading
28.2
Public
Leading
30.4
Type of Setting
Private
37.0
36.0
There was a significant difference in the type of setting and the outcome of the subject's
confidence levels. F((1, 36) = 46.890, p,.001) There was a significant effect reported of high
levels of confidence reported in the private setting for both types of questions (mean = 36.5) as
opposed the public setting for both types of questions (mean = 29.3).
There was no reported significance of question type on subject's confidence levels. F(1, 36) =
.326, n.s.)
There was no reported significant interaction between setting type and question type on a
participant's reported confidence. F((1, 36) = 2.316, n.s.)
It can be said that overall there was a main effect of the private setting on accuracy of detail
recall, which can be said to be linked to confidence of the individual. The type of setting
explained 27% of the change in accuracy. Also leading questions can increase the number of
Interrogation 14
responses that a subject reports, but because leading information can be accurate, misleading
effects on accuracy can vary.
Interrogation 15
OUTPUT FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE: ACCURACY OF DETAILS
Dependent Variable: ACCURACY
SETTINGQ TYPEQUES
Me
Public
Non-Leading
9.8000
Leading
11.3000
Total
10.5500
Private
Non-Leading J 12.5000
Leading
13.5000
Total
13.0000
I Total
Non-Leading 1 11.1500
Leading
I 12.4000
Total
11.7750
Std. Deviation
1.87380
2.11082
2.08945
2.71825
1.43372
2.17643
2.66112
2.08756
2.44412
101
10 I
20 I
20
20
40
Tests of Between-Svhjects,Effects
Dependent Variable: ACCURACY
Source
Corrected Model
I Intercept
SETTINGQ
I TYPEQUES
I SE I I INGQ TYPEQUES
Error
Total
Corrected Total
ype ill Sum
of Squares
76.275a
5546.025
60.025
15.625
.625
156.700
5779.000
232.975
df
3
1
36
40
39
a. R Squared = :327 (Adjusted R Squared = .271)
Mean Square
25.425
5546.025
60.025
15.625
.625
4.353
F
5.841 I
274.135 I
13.790 i
3.590 I
.144
Sig.
.002
.000 1
.001
.066
.707
interro
_
OUTPUT FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE: CONFIDENCE
SETTINGQ T'PE QUES ii Mean
Non-L
Std. Deviati on
2:14994
Leading
Total .
30400.0
427395
29.3000
3.48077
Non-Leading
Leading_
37.0000
36.0000
146410
3.05505
10
Total
_36_5000
Non-Leading I 32_6000_
Leading
33.2000
_3_22000
20 .1
Total
20
5_31532_
4.61804
32.9000
201
40
4.92404
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: CONFIDEN
_Source.
Corrected Model
-
1_Intercept
SETTINGQ
TYPEQUES
SETTINGQ `"' TYPEQUES
Error
i Total
Corrected Total
Type ii Sum
of S uares
547.60081
df
Mean Square
3
43296.400
1
182.533
43296.400
518.4001
1
518.400 j
3.600 j
1
3.600
1
25.6001
11.056
25.600
398.000
44242.000
j
1
945.600 1
36
40
39
a. R Squared = .579 (Adjusted R Squared = .544)
F
16.511
3916.257
Sig_
.000
.000
46.890
.000 1
.326
.572 1
2.316
.137
Interrogation 17
DIE CUSSION
This experiment replicated the effect reported by (Loftus, 1974) using a video-clip to depict
events rather than a slide show. In keeping with this subjects that were exposed to the
misinformation following the main event were more likely than non-exposed subjects to claim
that they have seen the misinformation as part of the target event. The finding was replicated
using a more modem method.
Although the experiment did not replicate the exact findings as the Loftus study of 1974, where
suggestive questioning mislead the subjects to select the inaccurate responses. This study did in
fact demonstrate the misleading effect's power of suggestion and how it can lead someone to
state a response through the presence of an external cue, whether that be auditory, visual or
simply through the presence of others.
The experiment did achieve the desired effect and answered the question as to whether or not
other people impacted the way one answered and how confident they were in their answers. As
the research suggested many studies have replicated the effect and found no statistical findings
pertaining to accuracy and setting type. However this research has proven that it is possible when
an individual is answering on behalf of a group or when there is incentive involved as opposed to
the stakes being lowered. Studies have shown that there is indeed a huge impact on confidence
levels being lowered in the presence of others. In this experiment as stated this finding has been
indeed replicated to prove this to be indeed true.
Interrogation 18
The research project showed that upper year students had an impact on introductory year
students, and women intimidated men based on the reports of the manipulation check. It has been
suggested that the social impact of authority figures or adults claiming the roles of the
confederates may have taken a intimidation stand or have a greater influence on the participants.
Future research in this area of study could take this idea into consideration.
Interrogation 19
REFERENCES
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of
judgements. H. Guetzkow (Ed.) Groups leadership and men: Research in human
Relations (177-190). Pittsburgh . Carnegie Press
-
Loftus, Elizabeth. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology
Today, 87, 116-119.
Shaw, John S., Lafayette Coll, Zen, Tana K., Woyathler, Keith A. (2001). Public Eyewitness
Confidence Ratings can differ from those held privately. Law & Human Behavior, 25,
141-154.