Psychological Reports, 1992, 7 1 , 267-274.
O Psychological Reports 1992
ACCEPTANCE OF MISLEADING INFORMATION BY CHILDREN AND ADULTS CAMILLE V. MOLYNEAUX AND JANET D. LARSEN
John Carroll University Summary.-A total of 294 subjects from Grades 1, 3, 6 , and college viewed a videotape of a birchday party and heard misleading information embedded in three of nine questions they answered about what they had seen. Two days later, the subjects answered six additional questions which tested whether they had accepted the misleading information. Half the subjects had heard misleading information about three of the questions and half heard misleading information about the other three questions. The results indicated that a significant number of both children and adults accepted the misleading information embedded in three of [he six quescions. For only one question was there any difference in the likelihood that subjects in different grades would accept misleading information.
The early studies of acceptance of misinformation were done with adults. For instance, Loftus (1975) showed college students a videotape of a car accident and had them answer questions about what they had seen. Some subjects received false information (that there had been a barn in the videotape) as part of one of the questions. When tested at a later time, these subjects were more likely to answer YES to a question asking if they had seen a barn than subjects who had not received the misleading information (17 3% vs 2 7%). Clearly not all subjects accepted misleading information, but sigmficantly more subjects in the misled group claimed to have seen the barn than those in the group not given the misleading information. In later studies children's acceptance of misleading information was examined, with the expectation that children would be more likely to be misled than adults. Children have sometimes been found to be more likely to accept misleading information than adults, and some studies show that younger children are more likely to be misled than older children (Cohen & Harnick, 1980; Goodman & Reed, 1986; Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987). In other studies, however, children were no more likely to accept misleading information than adults (Marin, Holmes, Guth, & Kovac, 1979) or children were less likely to accept misleading information than adults (Duncan, Whitney, & Kunen, 1982). While both adults and children may accept misinformation, it is not clear whether adults or children are more likely to be misled. 'The authors thank David Rainey of John Carroll University and John Kennedy of The Ohio State University for their assistance with the lo linear analysis used in this study. We also thank the children, teachers, and administrators of Independence Public Schools, Independence, O H , Gesu School, University Heights, OH, and St. Bartholomew School, Pittsburgh, PA, for yaking this research possible. Address correspondence to Janet D. Larsen, Department of Psychology, John Carroll University, Universiry Heights, OH 44118 or e-mail: LARSENaJCVAXA JCU EDU.
268
C.V. MOLYNEAUX & J. D. LARSEN
This study examined four age groups to see if there were age-related differences in the acceptance of misleading information. Three different elementary age groups and a college group were used.
METHOD Subjects Seventy-eight first graders, 85 third graders, and 60 sixth graders from suburban public and parochial schools participated with their parents' written consent. In addition, 71 college students participated in partial fulfillment of a course requirement or for additional credit. No personal information was gathered about the subjects, and their responses were anonymous. Subjects were tested in groups which varied in size from 11 to 23. There were four groups tested in each of the grades.
Procedure The children were told that they would see a videotape and later answer some questions about it. Subjects watched the videotape, which was 4 min., 20 sec. in length, about a family birthday party with a grandmother, father, mother, little girl, and little boy. Next, the subjects did an age-appropriate 5-min. distracting task. The first graders colored a picture and the third graders, sixth graders, and college students did a word-search puzzle. Then, subjects responded to nine questions about the videotape, each with three possible alternatives. The questions and alternatives were read aloud by the experimenter (CVM).At the same time, subjects were able to see slide picmes of each of the three alternatives projected on screens in the front of the room. They responded by circling one of the corresponding pictures on their answer sheets. There were three filler auestions. whch were the same for all subiects. The remaining six questions could contain misleading information. Each of the four groups within each grade heard misleading information in three of these questions and neutral information in the other three. For example, there was one question about the clown piiiata. The three forms of this question were (1) "Who finally broke the piiiata?", (2)"Who finally broke the Ninja Turtle piiiata?", (3) "Who finally broke the rhinoceros piiiata?" Half of the subjects heard a question containing neutral information and half of the subjects heard a question containing misleading information. Of the subjects who heard a question containing misleading information, half were misled with one item (Ninja Turtle) and half were misled with another item (rhinoceros). This was done so that, of the three choices on the follow-up test, each wrong alternative would be the misleading item for half of the subjects and the novel item for the other half. AU of the questions containing misleading information were counterbalanced across four groups at each grade. Thus, each of the two possible misleading items for each of the six questions was used once at each grade. The questions and alternatives are shown in Table 1. Two days later, subjects answered six additional questions to test whether they had accepted the misleading information. Three of the questions related to items about which subjects had heard misleading information on the initial test. As in the first test, there were three possible alternatives for each question. Subjects were able to see slide pictures of each of the three alternatives projected on screens in the front of the room. They responded by circling one of the corresponding pictures on their answer sheets. The questions and alternatives on this test of misleading information acceptance are shown in Table 2. Note that all of the questions emphasize answering with what was seen or heard in the video.
TABLE 1 BASEQUEST~ONS (AND ALTERNATIVES) ON TIIEFIRSTTEST, SHOWING IMPLANTATION OF MISLEADING AND NEUTRAL INFORMATION BY GROUP Group A
1.
2.
3. 4.
Group B
Group C
Group D
When everyone . . . singing happy birthday, who were they singing to? (mom, dad, little boy) . . . was . . . t . . . was wearing fireman hats . . . was . . . t . . . was wearing pointy party a n d . . .* hats and . . .' When the birthday boy made the wish for a . . ., for what holiday did his mom say he might get it? (his next birthday, Easter, Christmas) . . . bunny . . . . . . kitten. . . * . . . pet . . . t . . . pet . . . t What color were the flowers on the table? (white, yellow, purple) (filler question-same for all groups) Who cleaned up the piece of cake that . . . dropped on the table? (mom, little girl, dad) . . . the little boy . . . * . . . was . . . t . . . the Little girl . . . * . . . was . . . t
5.
Who gave the birthday boy the hoppity-hop present; that big ball he bounced on the living room floor with? (little girl, mom, dad) (filler question-same for all groups)
6.
What color were the balloons at the party? (orange, pink, white) (filler question-same for all groups) Who covered their ears when . . . popped a balloon? (little boy, mom, grandma) . . . the little boy . . . * Dad. . . . . . someone . . . t Who finally broke . . .? (little girl, dad, little boy) . . . the Ninja Turtle piiiata . . . * . the piiiata . . . t . . . the piiiata . . . t
7. 8.
. . . someone .
.. . t
. . the rhinoceros piiiata
...*
When they . . ., what kind of candy came out? (Reese's cups, miniature candy bars, Hershey kisses) . . . hit the piiiata . . . t . . . hit the piiiata with the . . . hit the pinata . . . t . . . hit the piiiata with the stick . . . baton . . . * Nofe.-Each grade was divided into four groups so that subjects at each g a d e heard all four of the possible combinations of questions. *Indicates misleading information (experimental). tlndicates neutral information (control).
9.
270
C. V. MOLYNEAUX & J. D. LARSEN TABLE 2
QUESTIONS (AND ALTERNATIVES) ON THE SECOND TEST:THE TESTOF W S L ~ DINFORMATION P~G ACCEPTANCE 1.
2. 3. 4.
What did you see the people wearing on their heads when they were singing Happy Birthday? (no hats*, fireman hats, pointy party hats) In the video, what did the birthday boy wish for when he blew out the candles on the cake? (kitten, bunny, puppy*) Whom did you see drop a piece of cake? (dad*, little boy, little girl) Whom did you see pop the balloon? (dad, mom', little boy)
5. What was the piiiata you saw? (Ninja Turtle, clown*, rhinoceros) 6 . What did you see them hit the phiata with? (stick, baton, bat*) *Indicates correct answer.
RESULTS Because the data were multidimensional categorical data, a log-linear analysis was conducted following the methods suggested by Kennedy (1983, 1988).' A three-way, 4 x 2 x 3 (grade by misled or not by correct, misleading, or novel response) frequency table was constructed for each question. Data were evaluated by fitting a series of log-linear models, known as logit models, to the data in which grade (A) and misled or control condition (B) were treated as explanatory (independent) variables and response (C) was the logit (dependent) variable. A simplified expression of the models used in this analysis, based on Kennedy (1988), is as follows: Model Model Model Model
(1) A + B + C + A B (2) A + B + C + AB + AC (3) A + B + C + A B + A C + B C (4) A + B + C + A B + A C + B C + A B C
In the case of a significant null-logit model (1)-(4), the values of the component chi squared for grade (1)-(2), misled or control condition (2)-(3), and the interaction between these two variables (3)-(4)were computed. There was a significant null-logit, indicating the presence of significant effects, for three of the six items: (I) What did you see the people wearing on their heads when they were singing "Happy Birthday "? (L,,' = 70.40, p < 0.01), (2) Whom did you see drop a piece of cake? (L,,' = 30.78, p
O Psychological Reports 1992
ACCEPTANCE OF MISLEADING INFORMATION BY CHILDREN AND ADULTS CAMILLE V. MOLYNEAUX AND JANET D. LARSEN
John Carroll University Summary.-A total of 294 subjects from Grades 1, 3, 6 , and college viewed a videotape of a birchday party and heard misleading information embedded in three of nine questions they answered about what they had seen. Two days later, the subjects answered six additional questions which tested whether they had accepted the misleading information. Half the subjects had heard misleading information about three of the questions and half heard misleading information about the other three questions. The results indicated that a significant number of both children and adults accepted the misleading information embedded in three of [he six quescions. For only one question was there any difference in the likelihood that subjects in different grades would accept misleading information.
The early studies of acceptance of misinformation were done with adults. For instance, Loftus (1975) showed college students a videotape of a car accident and had them answer questions about what they had seen. Some subjects received false information (that there had been a barn in the videotape) as part of one of the questions. When tested at a later time, these subjects were more likely to answer YES to a question asking if they had seen a barn than subjects who had not received the misleading information (17 3% vs 2 7%). Clearly not all subjects accepted misleading information, but sigmficantly more subjects in the misled group claimed to have seen the barn than those in the group not given the misleading information. In later studies children's acceptance of misleading information was examined, with the expectation that children would be more likely to be misled than adults. Children have sometimes been found to be more likely to accept misleading information than adults, and some studies show that younger children are more likely to be misled than older children (Cohen & Harnick, 1980; Goodman & Reed, 1986; Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987). In other studies, however, children were no more likely to accept misleading information than adults (Marin, Holmes, Guth, & Kovac, 1979) or children were less likely to accept misleading information than adults (Duncan, Whitney, & Kunen, 1982). While both adults and children may accept misinformation, it is not clear whether adults or children are more likely to be misled. 'The authors thank David Rainey of John Carroll University and John Kennedy of The Ohio State University for their assistance with the lo linear analysis used in this study. We also thank the children, teachers, and administrators of Independence Public Schools, Independence, O H , Gesu School, University Heights, OH, and St. Bartholomew School, Pittsburgh, PA, for yaking this research possible. Address correspondence to Janet D. Larsen, Department of Psychology, John Carroll University, Universiry Heights, OH 44118 or e-mail: LARSENaJCVAXA JCU EDU.
268
C.V. MOLYNEAUX & J. D. LARSEN
This study examined four age groups to see if there were age-related differences in the acceptance of misleading information. Three different elementary age groups and a college group were used.
METHOD Subjects Seventy-eight first graders, 85 third graders, and 60 sixth graders from suburban public and parochial schools participated with their parents' written consent. In addition, 71 college students participated in partial fulfillment of a course requirement or for additional credit. No personal information was gathered about the subjects, and their responses were anonymous. Subjects were tested in groups which varied in size from 11 to 23. There were four groups tested in each of the grades.
Procedure The children were told that they would see a videotape and later answer some questions about it. Subjects watched the videotape, which was 4 min., 20 sec. in length, about a family birthday party with a grandmother, father, mother, little girl, and little boy. Next, the subjects did an age-appropriate 5-min. distracting task. The first graders colored a picture and the third graders, sixth graders, and college students did a word-search puzzle. Then, subjects responded to nine questions about the videotape, each with three possible alternatives. The questions and alternatives were read aloud by the experimenter (CVM).At the same time, subjects were able to see slide picmes of each of the three alternatives projected on screens in the front of the room. They responded by circling one of the corresponding pictures on their answer sheets. There were three filler auestions. whch were the same for all subiects. The remaining six questions could contain misleading information. Each of the four groups within each grade heard misleading information in three of these questions and neutral information in the other three. For example, there was one question about the clown piiiata. The three forms of this question were (1) "Who finally broke the piiiata?", (2)"Who finally broke the Ninja Turtle piiiata?", (3) "Who finally broke the rhinoceros piiiata?" Half of the subjects heard a question containing neutral information and half of the subjects heard a question containing misleading information. Of the subjects who heard a question containing misleading information, half were misled with one item (Ninja Turtle) and half were misled with another item (rhinoceros). This was done so that, of the three choices on the follow-up test, each wrong alternative would be the misleading item for half of the subjects and the novel item for the other half. AU of the questions containing misleading information were counterbalanced across four groups at each grade. Thus, each of the two possible misleading items for each of the six questions was used once at each grade. The questions and alternatives are shown in Table 1. Two days later, subjects answered six additional questions to test whether they had accepted the misleading information. Three of the questions related to items about which subjects had heard misleading information on the initial test. As in the first test, there were three possible alternatives for each question. Subjects were able to see slide pictures of each of the three alternatives projected on screens in the front of the room. They responded by circling one of the corresponding pictures on their answer sheets. The questions and alternatives on this test of misleading information acceptance are shown in Table 2. Note that all of the questions emphasize answering with what was seen or heard in the video.
TABLE 1 BASEQUEST~ONS (AND ALTERNATIVES) ON TIIEFIRSTTEST, SHOWING IMPLANTATION OF MISLEADING AND NEUTRAL INFORMATION BY GROUP Group A
1.
2.
3. 4.
Group B
Group C
Group D
When everyone . . . singing happy birthday, who were they singing to? (mom, dad, little boy) . . . was . . . t . . . was wearing fireman hats . . . was . . . t . . . was wearing pointy party a n d . . .* hats and . . .' When the birthday boy made the wish for a . . ., for what holiday did his mom say he might get it? (his next birthday, Easter, Christmas) . . . bunny . . . . . . kitten. . . * . . . pet . . . t . . . pet . . . t What color were the flowers on the table? (white, yellow, purple) (filler question-same for all groups) Who cleaned up the piece of cake that . . . dropped on the table? (mom, little girl, dad) . . . the little boy . . . * . . . was . . . t . . . the Little girl . . . * . . . was . . . t
5.
Who gave the birthday boy the hoppity-hop present; that big ball he bounced on the living room floor with? (little girl, mom, dad) (filler question-same for all groups)
6.
What color were the balloons at the party? (orange, pink, white) (filler question-same for all groups) Who covered their ears when . . . popped a balloon? (little boy, mom, grandma) . . . the little boy . . . * Dad. . . . . . someone . . . t Who finally broke . . .? (little girl, dad, little boy) . . . the Ninja Turtle piiiata . . . * . the piiiata . . . t . . . the piiiata . . . t
7. 8.
. . . someone .
.. . t
. . the rhinoceros piiiata
...*
When they . . ., what kind of candy came out? (Reese's cups, miniature candy bars, Hershey kisses) . . . hit the piiiata . . . t . . . hit the piiiata with the . . . hit the pinata . . . t . . . hit the piiiata with the stick . . . baton . . . * Nofe.-Each grade was divided into four groups so that subjects at each g a d e heard all four of the possible combinations of questions. *Indicates misleading information (experimental). tlndicates neutral information (control).
9.
270
C. V. MOLYNEAUX & J. D. LARSEN TABLE 2
QUESTIONS (AND ALTERNATIVES) ON THE SECOND TEST:THE TESTOF W S L ~ DINFORMATION P~G ACCEPTANCE 1.
2. 3. 4.
What did you see the people wearing on their heads when they were singing Happy Birthday? (no hats*, fireman hats, pointy party hats) In the video, what did the birthday boy wish for when he blew out the candles on the cake? (kitten, bunny, puppy*) Whom did you see drop a piece of cake? (dad*, little boy, little girl) Whom did you see pop the balloon? (dad, mom', little boy)
5. What was the piiiata you saw? (Ninja Turtle, clown*, rhinoceros) 6 . What did you see them hit the phiata with? (stick, baton, bat*) *Indicates correct answer.
RESULTS Because the data were multidimensional categorical data, a log-linear analysis was conducted following the methods suggested by Kennedy (1983, 1988).' A three-way, 4 x 2 x 3 (grade by misled or not by correct, misleading, or novel response) frequency table was constructed for each question. Data were evaluated by fitting a series of log-linear models, known as logit models, to the data in which grade (A) and misled or control condition (B) were treated as explanatory (independent) variables and response (C) was the logit (dependent) variable. A simplified expression of the models used in this analysis, based on Kennedy (1988), is as follows: Model Model Model Model
(1) A + B + C + A B (2) A + B + C + AB + AC (3) A + B + C + A B + A C + B C (4) A + B + C + A B + A C + B C + A B C
In the case of a significant null-logit model (1)-(4), the values of the component chi squared for grade (1)-(2), misled or control condition (2)-(3), and the interaction between these two variables (3)-(4)were computed. There was a significant null-logit, indicating the presence of significant effects, for three of the six items: (I) What did you see the people wearing on their heads when they were singing "Happy Birthday "? (L,,' = 70.40, p < 0.01), (2) Whom did you see drop a piece of cake? (L,,' = 30.78, p
