• Write 11-13 pages conducting an experiment research in APA format• Make sure that there must be NO PLAGIARISM • I will post some attachments that you really need to read • More information: For this assignment I will attach the instructions that you have to follow such as how many pages and what kind of information you need to cover for each part. The main document that has all the information you need to know about the experiment will be the IRB proposal document, and for the other sections of the paper you will have to read the instructions carefully on the top of each document listed above.Abstract:Introduction:Method materials: including hypothesis and The research question which is, are there differences in quilt radiation or rating between the three groups of the independent variables which are, eye witness, discrete eye witness and no eye witness.Results materials: I will attach the exact template that used for this assignment in a picture form. It is already done for you Discussion:References:
irb_application___eyewitness_testimony_and_college_major.pdf

sample_outline_for_an_introduction_to_a_scientific_paper_1.docx

outline_on_writing_an_experimental_method_section.docx

sample_outline_for_an_discussion_to_a_scientific_paper_1.docx

results_statistics_tables.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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.]
N …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment