Be A Juror Instructor's Page

Be A Juror Experiment

Back to Instructor's Page

Introduction
Method
Data Analysis
References

Introduction

Eyewitness testimony research is fun to participate in, fun to read about, and has important practical applications (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000 ). The present study, originally proposed by Thompson (1992), is very useful for instructional purposes. At a basic level, it can be used to talk about people's susceptibility to eyewitness testimony. At a more advanced level, it can be used to show the value of using multiple group designs and as a jumping off point for explaining how to do post-hoc tests.

Method

Participants in this study are asked to rate their attitude about a defendant's guilt on a 1 (definitely not guilty) to 7 (definitely guilty) scale. There are three conditions (1) a no eyewitness condition, (2) a discredited eyewitness, and (3) an unrefuted eyewitness.

Data Analysis and Anticipated Results

Usually, the main effect for eyewitness condition (no eyewitness vs. discredited eyewitness vs. unrefuted eyewitness) will be statistically significant. Often, post hoc tests will find that (1) participants in both eyewitness conditions see the defendant as more guilty than participants in the no-eyewitness condition and (2) the eyewitness conditions will not differ from each other.

References

Thompson, B. (1992, August). Making data analysis realistic: Incorporating data collection into statistics courses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
Ť Return to Topť

Last revised:June 03, 2003 11:46:56 AM
CopyrightŠ 1995 The University of Mississippi. All rights reserved.
Questions about this page?PsychExps



Be A Juror Experiment

Back to Instructor's Page
Introduction Method Data Analysis References
Introduction
Eyewitness testimony research is fun to participate in, fun to read about, and has important practical applications (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000 ). The present study, originally proposed by Thompson (1992), is very useful for instructional purposes. At a basic level, it can be used to talk about people's susceptibility to eyewitness testimony. At a more advanced level, it can be used to show the value of using multiple group designs and as a jumping off point for explaining how to do post-hoc tests.
Method
Participants in this study are asked to rate their attitude about a defendant's guilt on a 1 (definitely not guilty) to 7 (definitely guilty) scale. There are three conditions (1) a no eyewitness condition, (2) a discredited eyewitness, and (3) an unrefuted eyewitness.
Data Analysis and Anticipated Results
Usually, the main effect for eyewitness condition (no eyewitness vs. discredited eyewitness vs. unrefuted eyewitness) will be statistically significant. Often, post hoc tests will find that (1) participants in both eyewitness conditions see the defendant as more guilty than participants in the no-eyewitness condition and (2) the eyewitness conditions will not differ from each other.
References
Thompson, B. (1992, August). Making data analysis realistic: Incorporating data collection into statistics courses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598. Ť Return to Topť

Last revised:June 03, 2003 11:46:56 AM CopyrightŠ 1995 The University of Mississippi. All rights reserved. Questions about this page?PsychExps