Suggestibility Affecting PerceptionIntroductionVariablesHypothesisPerceptionParticipantsMaterialsProcedureResultsSlide 10Slide 11Slide 12DiscussionSlide 14How our study was different from Loftus & Palmer (1974)ProblemsImplicationDirections for Future ResearchQuestions? Comments?Suggestibility Affecting PerceptionCarolina FoxMaggie ZagerDavid ElkinFran GottenkienyIntroductionPrior studies of suggestibility have examined the effect of leading questions on a participant's memory of an event.•Macrae, Schloerscheidt, Bodenhausen, & Milne (2002) propose that remembering is an active process that is reconstructed and changes with perception.•Hayes & Delamothe (1997) found that misleading postevent information created false memories.•Loftus and Palmer (1974) studies suggest that changing a word may have impact on how people remember an event.Variables•Independent Variable:1. Type of Preceding Questions(suggestive or non-suggestive)2. Type of Target Question(suggestive or non-suggestive)•Dependent Variable: Estimated speed of the automobileHypothesis We expected that participants who received both suggestive questions preceding a target question and a suggestive target question would report the highest speed, while participants who received non-suggestive questions preceding a target question and a non-suggestive target question would report the lowest speed.Perception•Present impression gained by the interpretation of past sensory stimuli (i.e. narrative)Participants•122 overall participants - Suggestive PQ-Suggestive TQ Condition – 31 Ps- Non-Suggestive PQ-Suggestive TQ Condition – 32 Ps- Non-Suggestive PQ-Non-Suggestive TQ Condition – 30Ps- Suggestive PQ-Non-Suggestive TQ Condition – 29 Ps•Ps were all female, Mount Holyoke College students and ranged in age from approx. 18-45 years. Participants were asked to volunteer in this study.•Randomly assignedMaterials•Computer Program with:- narrative of automobile accident- four different questionnaires•Computer•Consent form•Debriefing StatementProcedure•5-10 minutes•random assignment of Ps to four experimental conditions1. Non-Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ2. Non-Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ3. Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ4. Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ•Ps read narrative and answer multiple choice questions•DebriefingResults•DV – estimated speed of the vehicle•Hypothesis: We expected that participants who received both suggestive questions preceding a target question and a suggestive target question would report the highest speed, while participants who received non-suggestive questions preceding a target question and a non-suggestive target question would report the lowest speed. •Analysis: 2 (preceding questions: suggestive or non-suggestive) x 2 (target question: suggestive or non-suggestive) Independent Groups ANOVAResultsMeans1. Non-Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ = 56.9672. Non-Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ = 51.4373. Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ = 54.2754. Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ = 58.064ResultsMain Effects:•No significant main effect for type of preceding questionsF(1, 118)=.0.387, MSE=304.886, p>.05 •No significant main effect for type of target questionF(1,118)=.076, MSE=304.886, p>.05. Interaction:There was no significant interaction. F(1,118)=2.168, MSE=304.886, p>.05Non suggestiveSuggestiveTarget QuestionGraph of Mean Speeds for Suggestive and Non-Suggestive QuestionnairesError Bars show Mean +/- 1.0 SEBars show MeansNon-SuggestiveSuggestiven sQuestionnaire0.0020.0040.0060.00Speed (mph)Discussion•No significant difference between groups- Ps did not report significantly higher speeds for the suggestive/suggestive condition than the other conditions- The type of questionnaire Ps received did not significantly affect the speeds reported. For all conditions, Ps reported approximately the same speeds.DiscussionOur results were inconsistent with past research:• Hayes & Delamothe (1997): we found that misleading postevent information did not affect our results.• Loftus and Palmer (1974): changing a target word did not have an impact on how people remember an event.How our study was different from Loftus & Palmer (1974)•Type of Stimulus–video vs. written narrativeProblems•Manipulation may not have been strong enough (preceding questions may not have been worded strongly enough to affect one’s perception of an event).•Ps may not have read the narrative & questions thoroughly, and therefore may not have been affected by the manipulation.Implication•Recollections of written events may be less likely to be distorted than visual stimuli.Directions for Future Research•Researchers should explore differences between written text and video stimuli on suggestibility–because this may explain the difference in results between our study and Loftus’ study•Researchers should consider using different types of written narratives (e.g. narratives that engage the reader rather than merely inform the