An Independent groups design was used for this experiment. This means that different participants were used in both conditions. This method was chosen to avoid order effects, which could be a result of using the same participants twice, this could have affected the result data collected. This also reduces the chances of demand characteristics arising, as participants will be less likely to guess the purpose of this experiment having completed only two different questionnaires. Also as both conditions could be tested at the same time this method would be more time efficient than others (e.g. repeated measures designs where each condition involves the same participants so conditions will have to take place at different times). One disadvantage of this may be that the differences between each condition could be due to the differences of the individuals and not the leading questions. This could have been to the detriment of the experiment, however in attempts to minimise the effects of this, participants were randomly allocated to each group by ballot.
Posters requesting participants for a Psychology experiment were placed around the sixth form block of a local college and 20 volunteering participants between the ages of 16 and 18 were selected to take part in this experiment. They were randomly divided by ballot into two groups of 10.
Standardised Instructions were devised by the experimenter and then printed and used for consistency to ensure that each participant received the same instructions (See Appendix ii).
To comply with the British Psychological Societies ethical guidelines a consent form was devised (see Appendix i). On signing the form the participant gave their consent for participation in the experiment. After the experiment had taken place the participants were debriefed. This ensured that the participant was comfortable with the answers and behaviours that they had given and displayed during the course of the experiment. At this point participants were allowed to ask any questions as the true nature of the experiment was revealed. After signing the consent form participants were told that they had the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, this prevented the participants from suffering from psychological or physical harm.
Participants
20 Participants (10 of each sex) between the ages of 16 and 18 were used to consider the validity of eyewitness testimony in the sixth form of a local school. They were selected, as they were an educated section of the community and fall within the age bracket. Posters were put up around the school and the first 20 volunteers were selected. As there were 2 conditions in this experiment participants were randomly divided into 2 groups by ballot. Students of Psychology were not chosen to ensure that participants remained naïve. The data was collected by a single female A level Psychology student researcher.
Apparatus
Procedure
By volunteering for the experiment participants gave their consent to participation in this study. When participants entered the room were told that they were participating in a psychological experiment on eyewitness testimony. Participants were not told the exact nature of the experiment. This measure was taken to avoid demand characteristics, to ensure that participant’s answers and behaviours are genuine. One condition entered the room. Each participant was allocated a seat, one space away from the other. In front of each participant was an overturned questionnaire form with normal questions. Standardised instructions were read out to participants by the researcher prior to the start of the experiment. Participants then watched a 3-minute video/DVD clip. After this they were given 2 minutes to complete their questionnaires. The half of the first condition was given the questionnaire with leading questions and the other half was given the questionnaire with non-leading questions. This was repeated for the second condition. After questionnaires had been collected the participants were debriefed. Here they were informed of the true nature of the experiment and any doubts and ill feeling were reassured to the participants. An opportunity was then presented for participants to put forward any queries they may have had about the study. Results were checked to find which group gave the most correct answers. This was to decipher whether or not leading questions affect eyewitness testimony.
Introduction
Background
Memory is a term that is commonly used to either identify where incoming sensory data is stored or the way in which people retain information. However, over the years the soundness of memories has been questioned as it has been found that memories can be adapted, readjusted and in some instances even changed. As this is so, all types of memory must be questioned including eyewitness testimony. For many years its validity has been questioned, this is due to the fact that heavily relied upon in the Criminal Justice System. If it is to be held in court as evidence and used to ensure a conviction, there should be no doubt of the validity of statements. Still, research has proved that there are many factors that influence memory one of them being leading questions. Leading questions rely upon an individual’s personal view; they are designed to influence the participant to achieve a desired (and often incorrect) answer. Asking leading questions will help us to see whether or not eyewitness testimony can be manipulated and thus whether or not it is reliable. This experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony.
In 1932, Bartlett conducted an experiment on Reconstructive Memory. He believed that memories were prone to inaccuracies that could be due to a number of reasons. He also believed that we could interpret different situations and change our memories, not on purpose, but to attempt to better understand or cope with them. He asked participants to read a short story and re-tell it as accurately as they could a number of times. It was found that over the time, the repeated stories became shorter, more reasoned, and more fitted to the individuals own cultural expectations. As such Bartlett was able to conclude that interpretation plays a great role in remembering, and consequently stated that the participants attempted to increase their understanding of the stories by adapting them to making the story fit into their own schemas.
Loftus, the worlds leading on eyewitness testimony conducted many pieces of research into leading questions. When she teamed with Palmer in 1974 they set out to find the effects of such questions on immediate recall. After having shown participants slides of a car accident, they were asked to estimate the speed at which the cars collided. Different synonyms were used for different groups (e.g. ‘smashed’ ‘hit’ ‘contacted’ ‘bumped’). Each verb achieved an estimate that was statistically significant in difference.
In 1975, Loftus conducted an experiment on Post-Event Source Misattribution. Here two groups of participants were asked either “How fast was the white car going when it passed the ‘Stop’ sign whilst travelling along the country road?”(Group A) or “How fast was the white car going when it passed the barn whilst travelling along the country road?”(Group B) there was no barn in the film. After the duration of a week 17% OF Group B reported seeing a barn as opposed to 2% of Group A. The ‘after-the-event’ question had suggested that there had actually been a barn. This shows that memories can be manipulated post event.
Aim
The aim of this experiment is to investigate the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony.
Rationale
I chose to carry out this study because eyewitness testimony is supposedly significant and results in several convictions and I would like to test its validity. I found this an interesting subject to experiment on as many convictions in the Criminal Justice System have been founded on something that has been found to be so unreliable. Also, I have found the discoveries that human memories may be manipulated by almost anyone intriguing. This has been shown in some of Loftus’s past research.
Null hypothesis
Leading questions will not affect eyewitness testimony and any results incurred will be purely due to chance.
Hypothesis
Leading questions will affect eyewitness testimony. The leading questions will result in more incorrect answers, which will prove the insecurity of eyewitness testimony. A directional hypothesis was chosen for this experiment as past research has past research has suggested that leading questions do negatively affect the validity of eyewitness testimony.
Standardised Instructions
- Participants will be divided equally and randomly (by hat drawn ballot) into two different conditions
- The first condition must be taken into a room with blinds drawn and windows closed at average room temperature. This room should be devoid of distracting tools, images etc.
- Each participant must be sat a desk space away from another participant. On the desks in front of them must be a pen and an overturned questionnaire with leading questions.
- The participants should be asked to be silent and the following should be said:
“Welcome and thank you for participating in this experiment. This is an investigation into eye witness testimony. Please do not turn over the question paper in front of you until you are asked to do so. A three minute clip will be played for you. Please watch this clip carefully as you will later be questioned on it. You will have 3 minutes to answer the questions after the clip, after which we will ask you to stop writing and return your question papers to us. Do you have any questions? (at this point any queries should be taken and addressed to the best of the researchers ability, without giving away the true purpose of the experiment)”
- The clip should then be played in the view of all participants in the condition. After this clip is played participants should then answer all questions, this should all be done in silence.
- After the three minute answer period has ended the questionnaires should be collected by the researcher(s) and participants should be debriefed. The true nature of the experiment should be revealed and the participants should be put at ease about their involvement.
- This procedure should be followed with the second condition however the questionnaire without leading questions should be used.