Eyewitness Misinformation Susceptibility Across Data Collection Contexts: Comparing Laboratory, Online, and Prolific Participant Responses
Abstract
In recent years, many eyewitness misinformation studies have moved from face-to-face to online data collection. However, the impact of different data collection contexts on misinformation susceptibility has not yet been investigated. In Study 1, we compared results from the same experiment conducted in two different data collection contexts–in person in a Laboratory and online via the recruitment platform Prolific–and found that Prolific participants were both less accurate overall and more susceptible to misinformation. Furthermore, we replicated a previous finding that increased visual perceptual load in a scene reduces eyewitness recall accuracy, but observed this effect in the Laboratory group only. In Study 2, we added a General Online group to test whether these differences extended to all online data collection, or if they were specific to Prolific participants. Misinformation susceptibility in the General Online group was similar to the Laboratory group, and significantly lower than that in the Prolific group. However, perceptual load effects were also absent in the General Online group. Ultimately, these findings indicate that different data collection contexts yield varying results in eyewitness misinformation studies. Researchers should exercise caution when selecting recruitment approaches, as attentional engagement and experimental control differ across contexts.
Study specs
Two studies were conducted comparing eyewitness misinformation susceptibility across Laboratory, Prolific, and General Online participant groups under varying visual perceptual load conditions.
- Institution
- University College Dublin
- Discipline
- Psychology
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Eyewitness misinformation susceptibility and recall accuracy across Laboratory, Prolific, and General Online participant groups; the effect of visual perceptual load on recall accuracy.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.