The Red Herring technique: a methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics

Abstract

In past research, we planted false memories for food related childhood events using a simple false feedback procedure. Some critics have worried that our findings may be due to demand characteristics. In the present studies, we developed a novel procedure designed to reduce the influence of demand characteristics by providing an alternate magnet for subjects' natural suspicions. We used two separate levels of deception. In addition to giving subjects a typical untrue rationale for the study (i.e., normal deceptive cover story), we built in strong indicators (the "Red Herring") that the study actually had another purpose. Later, we told subjects that we had deceived them, and asked what they believed the "real purpose" of the study was. We also interviewed a subset of subjects in depth in order to analyze their subjective experiences of the procedure and any relevant demand. Our Red Herring successfully tricked subjects, and left little worry that our false memory results were due to demand. This "double cross" technique may have widespread uses in psychological research that hopes to conceal its real hypotheses from experimental subjects.

False Accusations in an Investigative Context: Differences between Suggestible and Non‐suggestible Witnesses

“…Although a few participants were suspicious of the true purpose of the study (n = 6), they did not give significantly different responses than the majority of participants who showed no signs of suspicion. This finding supports other research that indicates that suspicion does not tend to lead to demand characteristics in memory distortion studies (Laney, Kaasa, Morris, Berkowitz, Bernstein, & Loftus, 2008).…”

Disowned recollections: Denying true experiences undermines belief in occurrence but not judgments of remembering

“…Nonetheless, future research might better address the issue of demand effects by adapting procedures such as Kassin and Kiechel's (1996) 'confederate in the waiting room' technique, or Laney et al's (2008) 'Red Herring' technique, both of which are designed to subtly probe for participant suspicion.…”

Bias versus bias: Harnessing hindsight to reveal paranormal belief change beyond demand characteristics

“…However, even studies comparing paranormal-skepticism courses with controls, with anonymous belief reporting, likely suffered from an additional problem, demand characteristics (Orne, 1962): Students may simply have provided the instructor-as-investigator with the obviously desired responses (i.e., that they are now more skeptical of the paranormal than they were before). Of course, such demand characteristics may contaminate the assessment of any experimental, educational, or clinical interventions designed to change subjective outcomes (see, e.g., Laney et al, 2008). But is there a compelling way around them?…”