1. Suggestibility Affecting Perception Carolina Fox Maggie Zager David Elkin Fran Gottenkieny

2. Introduction Prior 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.

3. 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 automobile

4. 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.

5. Perception Present impression gained by the interpretation of past sensory stimuli (i.e. narrative)

6. 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 assigned

7. Materials Computer Program with: - narrative of automobile accident - four different questionnaires Computer Consent form Debriefing Statement

8. Procedure 5-10 minutes random assignment of Ps to four experimental conditions 1. Non-Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ 2. Non-Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ 3. Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ 4. Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ Ps read narrative and answer multiple choice questions Debriefing

9. Results 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 ANOVA

10. Results Means 1. Non-Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ = 56.967 2. Non-Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ = 51.437 3. Suggestive PQ/Non-Suggestive TQ = 54.275 4. Suggestive PQ/Suggestive TQ = 58.064

11. Results Main Effects: No significant main effect for type of preceding questions F(1, 118)=.0.387, MSE=304.886, p>.05 No significant main effect for type of target question F(1,118)=.076, MSE=304.886, p>.05. Interaction: There was no significant interaction. F(1,118)=2.168, MSE=304.886, p>.05

13. 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.

14. Discussion Our 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.

15. How our study was different from Loftus & Palmer (1974) Type of Stimulus –video vs. written narrative

16. Problems 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.

17. Implication Recollections of written events may be less likely to be distorted than visual stimuli.

18. 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 reader)

19. Questions? Comments?