The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: Misleading questions and communicator expertise.

Smith, Vicki L.; Ellsworth, Phoebe C.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.294

Cited by 132 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the conditions under which witnesses encounter misinformation can have a profound impact on their suggestibility. Along these lines, prior research has shown that people are far less susceptible to misinformation delivered by a peer than by an authority figure (Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987;Dodd & Bradshaw, 1980;Lampinen & Smith, 1995;Smith & Ellsworth, 1987;Underwood & Pezdek, 1998), and that repeatedly encountering misinformation can increase its likelihood of being reported later (Foster, Huthwaite, Yesberg, Garry, & Loftus, 2012;. As indicated in the Introduction, some research has also shown that encountering misinformation from a narrative or a question can influence its effectiveness at altering memory reports, but the results are somewhat mixed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of recent studies have found that recalling details of an event following its occurrence can increase people's suggestibility to later presented misinformation. However, several other studies have reported the opposite result, whereby earlier retrieval can reduce subsequent eyewitness suggestibility. In the present study, we investigated whether differences in the way misinformation is presented can modulate the effects of testing on suggestibility. Participants watched a video of a robbery and some were questioned about the event immediately afterwards. Later, participants were exposed to misinformation in a narrative (Experiment 1) or in questions (Experiment 2). Consistent with previous studies, we found that testing increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented via a narrative. Remarkably, when misinformation was presented in questions, testing decreased suggestibility. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Iowa State UniversityAuthor Note These data were collected as part of the dissertation of the first author. We thank the following research assistants for their help with data collection: Jennifer Dillon, Kelsi Dodd, and Jennifer Piatak.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica LaPaglia, Department of TESTING AND SUGGESTIBILITY2 Abstract A number of recent studies have found that recalling details of an event following its occurrence can increase people's suggestibility to later presented misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). However, several other studies have reported the opposite result, whereby earlier retrieval can reduce subsequent eyewitness suggestibility (e.g., Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011). In the present study, we investigated whether differences in the way misinformation is presented can modulate the effects of testing on suggestibility. Participants watched a video of a robbery and some were questioned about the event immediately afterwards. Later, participants were exposed to misinformation in a narrative (Experiment 1) or in questions (Experiment 2).Consistent with previous studies, we found that testing increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented via a narrative. Remarkably, when misinformation was presented in questions, testing decreased suggestibility. In a recent New Jersey ruling, there was a reformulation of juror instructions aimed at clarifying how eyewitness testimony should be evaluated (Weiser, 2012). The new instructions educate jurors on findings from decades of research demonstrating the fallibility of eyewitness memory. Indeed, memory for an event or perpetrator can be drastically altered when witnesses are exposed to misleading postevent information (the misinformation effect; for a review see Loftus, 2005). More relevant to the present research is a counterintuitive finding that has been reported in a series of studies. Namely, that recalling the details of an event can increase eyewitness suggestibility to later presented misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009;Chan & L...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the possible social mechanisms contributing to these effects is the tacit expectation that what the questioner is saying is true (Vosniadou, 1982), a mechanism that can also be derived from the Grician maxim of quality (Grice, 1975). As Smith and Ellsworth (1987) have shown, the degree to which the questioner is regarded as an expert affects the influence of misleading questions. However, as Schwarz (1994) has noted, research on misleading questions has been limited to situations in which the questioner was assumed to be a cooperative communicator.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This strategy can serve a number of purposes, from questioning the witness's credibility to disorienting him or her. The introduction of such information after an event has been shown to modify the original recollection of the event (e.g., Christiaansen, Sweeny, & Ochalek, 1983;Read & Bruce, 1984;Smith & Ellsworth, 1987;Weinberg, Wadsworth, & Baron, 1983;Yuille, 1980). Either of the two framing strategies can be introduced by the modification of simple grammatical and semantic elements in the structure of the question.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The question–answer paradigm: You might regret not noticing how a question is worded.

Semin¹,

Poot²

1997

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments the authors investigated how verb choice in question formulation influences respondents' answers. These studies show that (a) as hypothesized, the choice of verb type (action vs, state) in forming a question influences interviewees' narratives systematically by impacting, inter alia, which individual is implicitly described as the causal originator of a social event; (b) interviewees are not aware of how their answers are manipulated; and (c) others who listen to or read the very same answers are sensitive to the linguistic differences in the narratives that are shaped by verb choices in question formulation. The implications of these findings for the self-fulfilling prophecy are discussed.How one answers questions can have dramatic consequences. It can make a difference between getting or losing a job, being convicted or released, and being trusted or distrusted. Obviously, the way one asks questions is also crucial and can have similar existential implications, such as making the difference between getting married or being dumped or between going out on a date or picking daisies. In two studies, we investigated how answers are shaped by the verbs used in forming the questions. This issue gives rise to three interrelated questions that we address here: (a) Are respondents' answers influenced by the types of predicates (verbs) that are used in question formulation? (b) If so, are respondents aware of this influence? (c) Moreover, do third parties detect the influence of question formulation on the answers when they read or listen to the answers? The match or mismatch between respondents' and third parties' perceptions clearly also becomes a critical issue, because the implications of mismatches can be far reaching.The research paradigm that we used to investigate these questions is the question-answer paradigm (QAP; Semin, Rubini, & Fiedler, 1995). The core theme of the QAP is that there are systematic differences in the way in which people answer two questions that are similar on the surface but differ in terms of the type of verb used in formulating the question. Consider the questions ''Why do you like the Washington Post?" and "Why do you read the Washington Post?" Both questions may appear to be requests to explain one's newspaper preference. If, however, the different verbs used in these two questions lead to answers that differ systematically in terms of how the explanation is grounded, then one would conclude that the choice of verb influences answers.

show abstract

“…Susceptibility to misinformation in the eyewitness context has been found to depend on the perceived credibility of the source of misinformation. For example, Smith and Ellsworth (1987) found that if the source of erroneous postevent information is thought to be competent and knowledgeable, this person's erroneous information is believed, and memory accuracy is compromised (see also Kwong See, Hoffman, & Wood, in press). Similarly, Dodd and Bradshaw (1980) found that if subjects were led to believe the source was not honest because the source had an intention to mislead, erroneous information provided by this source did not influence memory reports.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A modified Asch (1951) conformity paradigm was used to study the impact of social influence on reality-monitoring decisions about new items. Subjects studied pictures of some objects and imagined others. In a later test phase, they judged whether items had been perceived in the study phase, had been imagined, or were new. Critically, for some items, the subjects were informed of a confederate's response before rendering a judgment. Although the confederate was always correct when they responded to old items, for new items, the confederate responded perceived, imagined, or new, or did not respond (baseline). In two experiments, we show that memory for new items was influenced by an erroneous response of the confederate. Social conformity was reduced by undermining the credibility of the confederate (Experiments 1A and 1B), and the confederate's influence was evident even after there was only a 20-min delay between study and test (Experiment 2), when the subjects were 87% accurate on new baseline items. These experiments reveal the power of social influence on realitymonitoring accuracy and confidence.

show abstract

The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: Misleading questions and communicator expertise.

Cited by 132 publications

References 13 publications

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

The question–answer paradigm: You might regret not noticing how a question is worded.

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About