psypsy assignment~

Introduction:
Observation is an act which helps us to have knowledge of the environment. It is a
careful examination of phenomena. Knowledge in fact depends on observation. Although
the ability to observe is widespread, scientific observation differs from ordinary observation.
Scientific observation is systematic and goal-directed, whereas ordinary observation may
be casual and person may not pay attention to details.
Suggestion is one of the most important basic concepts in the field of social relations,
Postman believes that our system of social rewards and punishments provides us with
strong motivation to comply with current norms, to accept the standards of the majority
and of those in authority even if we had no part in evolving the standards. Often such
conformity becomes almost automatic, eliminating or severely reducing critical evaluation.
When stimulus conditions are created which lead to uncritical conformity, we speak of
suggestion. "Suggestibility" is the readiness with which an individual accepts an idea.
English and English (1958) define suggestion as "The process by which one person,
without argument, command or coercion directly induces another to act in a given way or to
accept a given belief, opinion or plan of action". According to Boring "we may define
suggestion as the acceptance by an individual of a frame of reference without the
intervention of critical thought processes".
Studies indicate that in experiments like the following one, observation is
influenced by suggestion. The accuracy of report is greater for non-suggestive questions
and least for the suggestive. Suggestive questions reduce the accuracy of reports as they
mislead the subject to accept what is not there in the picture. The other factors which
influence suggestibility are age, intelligence, past experience, mental set, etc.

Rol:
The first research paper I came across was titled “Initial testing reduces eyewitness
suggestibility for faces”, done by Jessica Ann LaPaglia in the year 2011. Past research has
demonstrated that verbally recalling the appearance of a perpetrator after witnessing a crime
can hinder one’s ability to identify that perpetrator in a subsequent line-up. A recent study by
Chan, Thomas, and Bulevich (2009) revealed that taking an initial memory test for an event
increases one’s susceptibility to later misleading information. These findings contradict those
from the testing effect literature, which indicates that initial testing should enhance memory
performance. The main aim of this study was to investigate the effects of verbally describing a
face on eyewitness suggestibility to later misinformation. Subjects witnessed a simulated crime
and then either took a test over their memory for the perpetrator of the crime or performed a
distractor task. Following a sho delay, subjects heard misleading information about the
perpetrator or only correct information. All subjects then took a final test over their memory for
the perpetrator. One hundred thirty-eight to two hundred students at Iowa State University
participated in the study. The study provided further evidence of verbal facilitation. The current
study uncovered a new and surprising finding given RES: initial testing reduces suggestibility for
faces. This was true in both recall and in biased-line-up identifications. The present study has
identified an important boundary condition for RES. Though, one needs to be cautious about the
generality of this boundary condition because it is unclear whether the effect would persist with
different instructions for the audio narrative, and for a longer witnessed event with intentional
encoding instructions.

Another work I came across was written by Stephen J. Ceci and Richard D. Friedman entitled
“The Suggestibility of Children: Scientific Research and Legal Implications” from the year 2000.
Young children have always been viewed as particularly vulnerable to suggestions. At the same
time, children may hesitate to disclose matters such as sexual abuse without significant
prompting. In some circumstances, these frailties aggravate the already difficult task of
determining whether a child's statement is truthful. This matter is of immense concern because
of the large number of young children who are interviewed each year during the course of abuse
and neglect investigations. The main aim of this study is to analyse psychological studies on
children's suggestibility and find a broad consensus that young children are suggestible to a
significant degree. The study was conducted by a series of interviews on children. The research
reveals that the degree to which children are suggestible depends to a large extent on how
investigators conduct interviews. It also suggests that abusive investigations are another factor
that enhances the dangers of suggestibility.

Yet another research paper I came across was titled “Suggestion and Suggestibility: A Factor
Analysis”, done by Anthony F. Tasso, in the year 2004 for the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
The aim of this study was to examine the domains of suggestion and suggestibility using factor
analytic methodologies. The study used nine behavioural measures of suggestibility and
hypothesised that three distinct factors would emerge. The study was conducted among 110
college students. It was hypothesised that hypnosis, Chevreul pendulum, and body sway would
load on the first factor, the odour test, progressive weights, and placebo responsiveness on the
second factor, and conformity and interrogative suggestibility to load on the third factor. Based
on the work done, it was found that suggestibility is a non-singular construct and does not have
a common latent disposition. People respond differently to each type of directive suggestion.
Suggestibility is not one thing. Someone cannot be said to be "suggestible" or "nonsuggestible."
Judicious use of the terms suggestion and suggestibility is essential to not only accurately
understand exactly how a person is responding to a suggestion but also to better understand the
nature of suggestibility of everyday life.

Problem: To study the effect of suggestion on the accuracy of report.

Hypothesis: "Suggestion reduces accuracy of report"

Plan: Expose a picture for sixty seconds. Compare the number of correct answers for the
two types of questions- suggestive and non-suggestive.

Variables:

a) Independent variable: The nature of questions- suggestive and now.

suggestive
b) Dependent variable: The accuracy of report for suggestive and non.
suggestive questions.

Experimental Controls:

a) Non-suggestive questions should be direct and refer to items present in

the picture.
b) Suggestive questions should be misleading so as to make the subjects
accept what is not there in the picture.
c) Answers to questions must be in one or two words.
d) The subject should not know the aim of the experiment.

Materials:

a) A picture with many details mounted on a cardboard and covered with a

flap.
b) A list of twenty questions-10 suggestive and 10 non-suggestive
c) Key to correct answers.
d) Stop clock.

Procedure:
The subject is seated comfortably before a table on which the picture, covered with
a flap is placed. The subject is instructed to be ready to observe the picture when it is
exposed. With the signal start', expose the picture and start the stop clock simultaneously.
After the lapse of 60 seconds (one minute), give the signal 'stop' and withdraw the picture.
Then present the list of 20 questions and obtain responses to each. Find out the number of
correct answers with the help of the key.
Instructions to the subject: "With the signal "start" I will present a picture for a brief
period. Observe the picture carefully as you will have to answer some questions with regard
to the picture after I say 'stop'".

Analysis of Data:
a) Find out the number of correct answers for suggestive and non-suggestive
questions.
b) Calculate the Mean for the group data

Points for Discussion:

a) Discuss whether the Subject is influenced by suggestion.
b) Discuss the mean performance and individual differences if any.

Table no.1 contains the data of the subject karthikeyan suresh from the experiment
OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIBILITY

initials-KSB
SR-3
NSR-4
difference (II-I)=1

Individual discussion:
The subject KSB is a 19year old male student studying BA in journalism and psychology at SJU.
The experiment ‘observation and suggestion’ was conducted on them. The subject scored 4 in
non-suggestive questions and 3 in suggestive questions. The scores indicates that the subject
KSB provided less number of correct responses to suggestive questions than non-suggestive
questions. Thus, the difference between the subject’s responses to suggestive and non-
suggestive is 1, proving that the subject KSB supports the hypothesis stating ‘suggestion
reduces the accuracy of the report’.

Table no.2 contains the data of the group from the experiment OBSERVATIONS AND
SUGGESTIBILITY

sn. initials. SR. NSR. D

1. DJ 2 5 3
2. AZ. 8 6 -2
3. RG. 8 6 -2
4. PDA. 4 7 3
5. AB. 9 8 -2
6. NSA. 9 6 -3
7. NM. 5 6 1
8. BU. 7 8 1
9. RP. 8 6 -2
10. NC. 4 8 4

ToTAl- 64 66 2
MeAn- 6.4. 6.6. 0.2

Group discussion:
The experiment ‘observation and suggestion’ was conducted on students studying BA journalism
and psychology .The group mean score for suggestive questions is 6.4 and non-suggestive is 6.6
which indicates that the group supports the hypothesis stating ‘suggestion reduces the accuracy
of the report’. However, there were individual differences within the group.

Conclusion:
The experiment shows suggestion reduces the accuracy of the report.
The group has supported the hypothesis.
However, there were individual differences in the group.