Eyewitness Testimony and College Major a. Abstract The purpose of this research project is to examine the relationship between eyewitness credibility, college major, and guilt ratings in a hypothetical jury situation. Specifically, the study will replicate Loftus (1974) and others, who have demonstrated that a trial which discredited eyewitness produces stronger ratings of guilt than a trial with no eyewitness. I will also investigate whether this relationship varies depending participants’ college majors. This will be an ongoing project conducted by students enrolled in SOC200 – Research Methods in the Social Sciences at Lynn University and reported as a part of course credit. Results stemming from this project might also be presented by undergraduate students in the form of academic posters or presentations at professional conferences. Anonymous surveys assessing participant demographic variables and guilt ratings of a hypothetical defendant will be administered via Qualtrics, an online survey program. Through Analysis of Variance, we will be able to gain a better understanding the association between the quality of eyewitness testimony, college major, and guilt ratings. b. Introduction One of the most influential studies on the impact of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials was published by Loftus in 1974. In that study, Loftus presented “jurors” (participants) with one of three descriptions of a crime, where a fictional defendant was charged with armed robbery and murder. In one condition, participants were provided a description of the crime and the circumstantial evidence presented by a fictional prosecution team. In a second condition, participants were provided an identical description, but were also told there was an eyewitness to the crime. In the third condition, participants were given the same description of the crime and evidence and were told that there was an eyewitness, but were informed that the eyewitness was not wearing her glasses at the time of the crime. Loftus (1974) reported that participants in this last “discredited eyewitness” condition were just as likely to find the defendant guilty as participants in the second “unchallenged” eyewitness condition and more than three times as likely to find the defendant guilty as those participants in the first “no eyewitness” condition. Since its original publication, these findings have been replicated a number of times (Cavoukian, 1980a, 1980b; Saunders & Vidmar, 1981). However, a meta-analysis of several replication attempts (Whitley, 1987) found notable discrepancies between studies, including an overall favorable effect of the “unchallenged eyewitness” condition over the “discredited eyewitness” condition – a finding that did not corroborate Loftus’ (1974) original study. Critics of Loftus’ study have pointed to several limitation in its methodology, most notably that psychological qualities of the participant were not measured, but undoubtedly affect jurors’ decisions in the courtroom. The current study seeks to address discrepancies in the literature by evaluating several participant variables as potential confounds of interest. Specifically, I will measure participants’ demographic information, college majors (e.g., psychology, biology, criminal justice, political science) and trait skepticism to determine whether either of these variables explains participants’ guilt ratings in response to eyewitness condition. c. Objectives: State the objectives of the study as research questions and/or hypotheses. The purpose of this research project is to replicate the methodology of the original Loftus (1974) study on eyewitness testimony, while accounting for participant characteristics. The study expands on previous research demonstrating that discredited eyewitnesses produce higher guilt ratings than trials where no eyewitness is present. The study will also serve as a demonstration of experimental research and potential confounding variables for students enrolled in SOC200 – Research Methods in the Social Sciences. My research questions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Are there differences in guilt ratings between the no eyewitness, discredited eyewitness, and unchallenged eyewitness conditions? Will participant characteristics account for these differences? Will participant characteristics predict guilt ratings, independent of condition? 9 d. Study Design and Methods Dr. Rachel Pauletti, the instructor for SOC200 – Research Methods in the Social Sciences, will serve as the Principal Investigator (PI). All students of SOC200 – Research Methods will serve the role of “Research Assistant”. All research assistants will be trained in survey research methods (e.g., sampling, data collection, and data analysis) and complete NIH Human Subjects Certification. All certificates will be kept by the PI. Using convenience sampling, research assistants will administer an online survey to at least 10 Lynn university students, heretofore known as “participants”, by providing a link that can be accessed via computer, tablet, or phone. Other instructors of SOC200 are eligible to collaborate with Dr. Pauletti. All participants will sign an electronic informed consent form and complete the survey in one sitting at their convenience. The informed consent form can be seen below in Appendix A. The form emphasizes the following points: • Participation is voluntary and participants can withdraw at any point. • Participants will not be paid in any form. • Participants can direct any questions to Dr. Rachel Pauletti (rpauletti@lynn.edu) • Participants will be debriefed on the purpose of the study after completing the survey. • Participation is anonymous. No identifiable data will be collected. Analysis of variance and Analysis of Covariance analyses will be conducted to assess the associations between eyewitness condition, participant characteristics, and guilt ratings. The PI and assistants will clean and analyze the data and preparation and APA style manuscript as a class project. This will be an ongoing project. Each semester, a new crop of students will become research assistants and conduct the study. The PI intends to renew this project each year and have new research assistants follow the same protocol described here. The general phases of data collection are described below. 1. Participant characteristics. Participants will begin with the option to provide informed consent. Consenting participants will then complete a questionnaire assessing demographic information, college major, and trait skepticism. This phase of the study should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Scales of the questionnaire can be seen in Appendix B. 2. Eyewitness testimony condition. After completing the questionnaire described above, participants will read a description of a fictional crime and will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions regarding the eyewitness. These conditions will mimic Loftus (1974), with a slight modification by Weinberg and Baron (1982). This should take no more than 2 minutes. Descriptions of each condition are provided in Appendix B. 3. Guilt ratings. After reading the description of the crime, participants will rate the guilt of the fictional defendant, on a 1 to 7 scale. This should take no more than 1 minute. This item is provided in Appendix B. e. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Participants must be a Lynn University student of at least 18 years of age. Lynn University students are a convenience sample. Participants of all genders, races, ethnicities, and nationalities will be eligible to participate. Participants will enter their age into the Qualtrics survey before completing the informed consent. If they indicate that they are under 18, they will automatically be taken to the end of the survey and will not be eligible to participate. f. Monitoring Subjects and Criteria for Withdrawal of Subjects from the Study The survey will be administered after research assistants have been trained in survey research and complete NIH Human Subjects Certification. Each semester, data collection should last 1-2 weeks, however the survey will be open throughout the semester. All data is anonymous and stored on Lynn University’s Qualtrics account. No identifiable data will be collected. 10 g. Analysis of the Study The primary outcome of this study is the guilt ratings of the fictional defendant. All pertinent research questions including the following can will be assessed using the statistical packages SPSS and R. 1. Are there differences in guilt ratings between the no eyewitness, discredited eyewitness, and unchallenged eyewitness conditions? Will participant characteristics account for these differences? Will participant characteristics predict guilt ratings, independent of condition? 2. 3. Relevant statistical analysis procedures include ANOVA and ANCOVA. The results from this research will be made available for dissemination via poster presentations and symposia. Students enrolled in SOC200 will also write an APA-style empirical manuscript based on the results of this study for course credit. h. Human Subject Protections (1) Rationale for Subject Selection a) One major question of this study is whether college major predicts guilt ratings. Lynn University students provide an exceptional sample for this research question, because they are in college. b) Recruitment of participants will take place at Lynn University. Participants will be recruited by students enrolled in SOC200. c) Participants will consist of Lynn University students 18 years of age or older. Students of all genders and ethnicities will be eligible to participate. d) There is no involvement of special classes of participants (e.g., fetuses, children, prisoners, or other vulnerable participants). e) Recruitment of participants will take place at Lynn University. participation will occur outside of class time. The PI and research assistants will create an introductory email to solicit participation. Participant is entirely voluntary. f) This study will not take place at other institutions. (2) Evaluation of Benefits and Risks/Discomforts: (a) Potential Benefits i. Benefits for Participants: Participants will gain some rudimentary knowledge of the process of collecting psychological data through the debriefing process. Furthermore, participants often find questionnaires examining psychological characteristics stimulating and enjoyable. ii. Benefits for society: Societal benefits include (1) gaining a better understanding of juror characteristics and trial outcomes and (2) teaching experimental methods to college-level students through this experiential process will enhance their ability to critique information. (b) Potential Risks Risks to participants is unlikely to be greater than risks encountered in everyday life. All participants will be able to withdraw from the survey at any point if they feel discomfort. All information is anonymous, so there is no risk to participant privacy. (c) Risk/Benefit The benefits of this study outweigh the costs. There are no more than minimal risks to participants and the study will contribute to the scientific literature and to learning for SOC200 students. (3) Cooperative Project with Another Institution or Agency This is not a cooperative project. (4) Involvement of Another IRB There are no other IRBs involved in the evaluation of this study. 11 (5) Human Subjects in a Foreign Country This research protocol does not involve human subjects in a foreign country. i. Adverse Event Reporting and Data Monitoring If any participant suffers any adverse effects from the study, the PIs will immediately alert the members of the IRB. Student research assistants will not be given to access to the data until the PIs have ensured that it is not identifiable. j. Consent and Assent Processes and Documents Participants will be invited to provide informed consent via Qualtrics before they answer any of the study questionnaires. We do not anticipate any non-English speaking participants in this study, and only participants over the age of 18 will be permitted to participate. No identifying information will be stored with participant responses. This informed consent form can be seen in Appendix A. k. References. Cavoukian, A. (1980, September). Eyewitness testimony: The ineffectiveness of discrediting information. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, CA. Cavoukian, A. (1980). The influence of eyewitness identification evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hurtt, R.K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure trait skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29, 149-171. doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149 Loftus, E.F. (1974, December). The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today. Saunders, D.M. & Vimar, N. (1981, April). Discredited eyewitness testimony and mock juror decisions. Paper presented the the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, MI. Weinberg, H.I. & Baron, R.S. (1982). The discredible eyewitness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 60-67. Whitley, B. (1987). The effects of discredited eyewitness testimony: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 209-214. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1987.9713681 l. Research Protocol Appendix: The following appendices are included below: a. b. c. Appendix A – Informed Consent Form Appendix B – Study Materials Appendix C – Curriculum Vita of PI 12 13 APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT Lynn University THIS DOCUMENT SHALL ONLY BE USED TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION FOR VOLUNTARY CONSENT PROJECT TITLE: Trial Evidence and Guilt Ratings IRB Number: 2018-XXX Lynn University 3601 N. Military Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33431 DIRECTIONS FOR THE PARTICIPANT: DIRECTIONS FOR THE PARTICIPANT: You are being asked to participate in a research study. This form provides you with information about the study. The Principal Investigator, Dr. Rachel Pauletti (rpauletti@lynn.edu) will answer all of your questions. You are free to ask questions at any time before, during, or after your participation in this study. Your participation is entirely voluntary. PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH STUDY: The purpose of this study is to explore the impacts of evidence and jury characteristics on guilt ratings in a fictional criminal trial. PROCEDURES: In this study, you will be asked several brief questions about yourself. You will then read a description of a fictional crime and the evidence provided by the prosecution during a fictional trial. You will then be asked to rate the “guilt” of the fictional defendant. This study should take you no more than 15 minutes to complete. POSSIBLE RISKS OR DISCOMFORT: You may experience discomfort when answering questions about your yourself, but this discomfort is of no greater risk than talking about yourself to another person. POSSIBLE BENEFITS: Taking part in this study will give you an opportunity to discover what it is like to participate in a psychology study. The results of this study may benefit society as a whole in the form of increased knowledge of this subject. Furthermore, you might find these questions stimulating and enjoyable. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: You will not be paid anything for participating in this study, nor will it cost you any money. ANONYMITY/CONFIDENTIALITY: All information collected in this study is anonymous. RIGHT TO WITHDRAW: You are free to choose whether to participate in this study. You may stop participating in this research project at any time. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS/ACCESS TO CONSENT FORM: Any further questions you have about this study or your participation in it, either now or any time in the future, will be answered by Dr. Rachel Pauletti who may be reached at (561) 237-7615 o r at rpauletti@lynn.edu. For any questions regarding your rights as a research subject, you may call Dr. Patrick Cooper, Chair of the Lynn University Institutional Review Board, at (561) 237-7407. AUTHORIZATION FOR VOLUNTARY CONSENT: I have read and understand this consent form. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions, and all my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I have been assured that any future questions that may arise will be answered. I understand that all aspects of this project will be carried out in the strictest of confidence, and in a manner in which my rights as a human subject are protected. I have been informed of the risks and benefits. I have been informed in advance as to what my task(s) will be and what procedures will be followed. I voluntarily choose to participate. I know that I can withdraw this consent to participate at any time without penalty or prejudice. I further understand that nothing in this consent form is intended to replace any applicable Federal, state, or local laws. 14 I have read this consent form and consent to participate in this study. I DO NOT consent to participate in this study. Date of IRB Approval: 15 APPENDIX B: STUDY MATERIALS The following is the list of questionnaires and experimental procedures that participants will receive, in the order that they will be administered. SECTION I: (approximately 10 minutes) Demographic Information: Age: Gender: What is your gender identity? Race/ethnicity: What is your your racial/ethnic identity? Political Affiliation: On a scale of 1 to 7, with “1” being very liberal” and “7” being very conservative, how would you rate your political beliefs/ideology? College Major: What is your current academic major? (Participants will select their major from a drop-down list, containing majors offered at Lynn and an “undecided” option) Trait Skepticism Professional Skepticism Scale (Hurtt, 2010) Instructions: Statements that people use to describe themselves are given below. Please choose the response that indicates how you generally feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Use the following scale to determine your answers. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 1. I often accept other people’s explanations without further thought. 2. I feel good about myself. 3. I wait to decide on issues until I can get more information. 4. The prospect of learning excites me. 5. I am interested in what causes people to behave the way that they do. 6. I am confident of my abilities. 7. I often reject statements unless I have proof that they are true. 8. Discovering new information is fun. 9. I take my time when making decisions. 10. I tend to immediately accept what other people tell me. 11. Other people’s behavior does not interest me. 12. I am self-assured. 13. My friends tell me that I usually question things that I see or hear. 14. I like to understand the reason for other people’s behavior. 15. I think that learning is exciting. 16. I usually accept things I see, read, or hear at face value. 17. I do not feel sure of myself. 18. I usually notice inconsistencies in explanations. 19. Most often I agree with what the others in my group think. 20. I dislike having to make decisions quickly. 21. I have confidence in myself. 22. I do not like to decide until I’ve looked at all of the readily available information. 23. I like searching for knowledge. 24. I frequently question things that I see or hear. 25. It is easy for other people to convince me. 26. I seldom consider why people behave in a certain way. 27. I like to ensure that I’ve considered most available information before making a decision. 28. I enjoy trying to determine if what I read or hear is true. 29. I relish learning. 30. The actions people take and the reasons for those actions are fascinating. 16 5 Strongly Agree 6 SECTION II: (approximately 2 minutes) Experimental Conditions [Participants will then be randomly assigned to one of the following three conditions.] No eyewitness: Imagine you are a juror in a trial where the following crime and evidence are described. The crime began as an armed robbery. During the course of the robbery, money was taken from the register. A man and his daughter, who were bystanders, were also randomly shot and killed by the robber. An investigation revealed that $110 was missing from the register. Two minutes after the robbery, the defendant was found walking away from the store with $110 in cash in his pocket. The murder weapon was not recovered. Unchallenged eyewitness: Imagine you are a juror in a trial where the following crime and evidence are described. The crime began as an armed robbery. During the course of the robbery, money was taken from the register. A man and his daughter, who were bystanders, were also randomly shot and killed by the robber. An investigation revealed that $110 was missing from the register. Two minutes after the robbery, the defendant was found walking away from the store with $110 in cash in his pocket. The murder weapon was not recovered. An eyewitness, who was a customer at the store, identified the defendant as the shooter. Discredited eyewitness: Imagine you are a juror in a trial where the following crime and evidence are described. The crime began as an armed robbery. During the course of the robbery, money was taken from the register. A man and his daughter, who were bystanders, were also randomly shot and killed by the robber. An investigation revealed that $110 was missing from the register. Two minutes after the robbery, the defendant was found walking away from the store with $110 in cash in his pocket. The murder weapon was not recovered. An eyewitness, who was a customer at the store, identified the defendant as the shooter. An optometrist testifies that the eyewitness was not wearing her glasses at the time of the shooting and, therefore, could not have identified the defendant. SECTION III: (approximately 1 minute) Guilt Rating and Debriefing Based on the evidence provided on the last page, how guilty would you rate the defendant? Select your answer from a 1 to 7 scale, where “1” indicates “Not Guilty” and “7” indicates “Very Guilty.” Not Guilty 1 2 3 4 5 6 Extremely Guilty 7 Debriefing Script [will be read to participant by a research associate]: Thank you for participating in our study! We were primarily interested in how the evidence provided to you affected your guilt rating of the defendant, and whether your personal characteristics, such as your major or your trait skepticism, impacted this relationship. You were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Some participants were randomly were told there was an eyewitness to this crime, others were told there was an eyewitness, but that this eyewitness was not wearing her glasses, and others were not told anything about an eyewitness. With your data and that of other participants, we will explore whether student major and skepticism influence reactivity to eyewitness testimony. We believe this study will help students gain a better understanding of the research and jury-selection processes. If you have any questions about the study that weren’t answered here, please contact Dr. Rachel Pauletti (rpauletti@lynn.edu). Have a great day! 17 SOC200 Social Science Research Methods Writing a Method Section Outline Instructions: 1. Get into groups. Open the document, Outline on Writing an Experimental Method Section from Canvas (or use the handout from class). a. Use the document IRB Proposal – Eyewitness Testimony and College Major to answer the following outline questions. 2. Begin writing your Method section (1-3 pages) using the Example Methods Section PDF as a template. Participants (NOTE: Since we just took the experiment today, you will have to wait until next class period to enter this information.) • Total number of participants____________________________________________________________________ • Number of males and females & % of sample that are males and females (use table below): Gender # of Participants and % of Participants o Average and standard deviation age of participants: _________________________________________________ o % of participants in each ethnicity (use table below): Ethnicity • # of Participants and % of Participants Explain how participants were recruited o Explain the sampling method we use? And what it means: _____________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ o How did we get people to take the survey? ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ o Explain how the participants were compensated. _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Materials • Describe demographic questions that were asked: __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ o Name of 1st survey: ____________________________________________________________________ • # of questions on survey: _______________ • describe the scale (e.g., 1-4 agreement scale): ________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ • give a sample question: _________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ • Describe the experimental manipulation o No eyewitness condition: ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ o Unchallenged eyewitness condition: _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ o Discredited eyewitness condition: _________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ • Explain how guilt rating was assessed: ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design & Procedure • Explain the entire process of taking the experiment. (e.g., informed consent -> Demographic questions -> etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ • Explain Research Q: __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ o Explain the research design (Circle One): Between-Subjects Design vs. Within-Subjects Design o Explain the Independent variable: _________________________________________________________ • What are the groups or levels of the IV 1. ________________________________________________________________________ 2. ________________________________________________________________________ 3. ________________________________________________________________________ o • Explain the Dependent variable: __________________________________________________________ Hypothesis: We predict that ____________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Gender Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Female 73 68.9 68.9 68.9 Male 33 31.1 31.1 100.0 Total 106 100.0 100.0 Descriptive Statisticsa condition N No eyewitness discredited eyewitness eyewitness Mean guilty 39 Valid N (listwise) 39 guilty 36 Valid N (listwise) 36 guilty 32 Valid N (listwise) 32 Std. Deviation 4.8718 1.36072 4.0278 1.25325 4.6563 1.53685 ANOVA guilty Sum of Squares Between Groups df Mean Square 14.142 2 7.071 Within Groups 198.550 104 1.909 Total 212.692 106 F Sig. 3.704 .028 Std. Error Sig. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: guilty Tukey HSD Mean Difference (I) condition No eyewitness discredited eyewitness eyewitness (J) condition (I-J) discredited eyewitness .84402* .31935 .025 eyewitness .21554 .32956 .791 No eyewitness -.84402* .31935 .025 eyewitness -.62847 .33570 .152 No eyewitness -.21554 .32956 .791 .62847 .33570 .152 discredited eyewitness Desig • Explain the entire process of taking the experiment. (e.g., informed consent -> Demographic questions -> etc.): • Explain Research Q: Are that between the three groups of the IV o Explain the research design (Circle One): Between-Subjects Design's. Within-Subjects Design differences in quitty naliting SH2222) o Explain the Independent variable: What are the groups or levels of the IV 1. 2. 3. o Explain the Dependent variable: in • Hypothesis: We predict that_Participents in th un Gwi will rate the defendent as more guilty th participants in the other two groups. Results A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate differences in guilty ratings for participants in the Eyewitness Condition (N = 32. Discredited Eyewitness Condition (N =2b), and the No Eyewitness Condition (N = 39. It was hypothesized that participants in the Eyewitness Condition would rate the fictional defendant as more guilty than the other conditions. There was a significant difference in conditions F (2,104) = 3,7044b = 098), but not as hypothesized. Post hoc tests revealed that there was a significant difference in guilty ratings between the 35 No Eyewitness Condition (M= 487 SD = 1 and the Discredited Eyewitness Condition M .). There was no significant difference in guilty ratings between the Eyewitness Condition (M=4.65 $D = 1,53) and the Discredited Eyewitness Condition or the No Eyewitness Condition. Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of the findings. = SD جمي= M) The results are surprising in that the No Eyewitness Condition rating the fictional defendant as most guilty. This is different that both our hypothesis and the hypothesis that Loftu (1974) predicted (i.e., that the discredited eyewitness condition would have the highest ratings guilt). Reasons for this will be discussed below.
Purchase answer to see full attachment