1 / 20

Stephanie Fisico, M.A. Lauren Wysman, B.A. Alan Scoboria, Ph.D University of Windsor, Canada

Avoiding responding to misleading questions: How “don’t know” instructions affect endorsement of misinformation. Stephanie Fisico, M.A. Lauren Wysman, B.A. Alan Scoboria, Ph.D University of Windsor, Canada. Introduction.

jaclyn
Télécharger la présentation

Stephanie Fisico, M.A. Lauren Wysman, B.A. Alan Scoboria, Ph.D University of Windsor, Canada

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Avoiding responding to misleading questions: How “don’t know” instructions affect endorsement of misinformation Stephanie Fisico, M.A. Lauren Wysman, B.A. Alan Scoboria, Ph.D University of Windsor, Canada

  2. Introduction • Interviewers face many challenges when attempting to gather information in the most complete and accurate manner • Completeness and accuracy are competing goals

  3. Introduction • Interviewers often focus only on substantive responses • “Don’t know” (DK) responses often overlooked • Some hypotheses developed as to what a DK response may mean

  4. DK Hypotheses • DK as a way to resist speculation • Poole & White, 1991 • DK represents meta-cognitive monitoring • Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996 • DK as a correct response to unanswerable questions • Roebers & Fernandez, 2002

  5. Meaning of DK • DK responses appear to have at least 3 distinct meanings: • Information not provided • Interviewee is unsure/unable to provide a response • Information was provided but specific details are not recalled

  6. Meaning of DK • Meaning of DK is thus ambiguous until the reason for providing it is clarified • Accuracy of DK is unknown unless questions are known to be answerable or unanswerable

  7. Prior research • Instructions impact the use of DK responses • DK responses used to avoid errors • Clarifying DK responses

  8. Current study • Added misleading questions • Tested instructions encouraging DK

  9. Question Types • Answerable • Open • Misleading (distort information) • Unanswerable • Open • Misleading (novel information)

  10. Procedure • Video of burglary • 30 minute delay • Instructions • Encouraged • Control • Questioning • Open (10 answerable; 10 unanswerable) • Misleading (4 answerable; 4 unanswerable) • Clarification of DK

  11. Results - Instructions • No statistically significant group differences • Encouraged vs. Control

  12. Results – Questions

  13. Results – Questions

  14. Results - Questions

  15. Results – Response Accuracy

  16. Results – Response Accuracy

  17. Limitations • Proportion of questions • Order of questions • Lab setting

  18. Conclusion • Allow/encourage DK responses • Clarification is crucial • Answerable vs. unanswerable misleading questions

  19. Practical Implications • Free recall interviewing preferable • Great care needed when engaging in questioning • Ambiguity of question type

  20. Acknowledgements • This research was funded by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada • We thank Seda Suner, Stephanie Oneschuk, Dwayne Barris, and Omari Hickson for their assistance with this project

More Related