Talk:Leading question

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment 1[edit]

I think this needs a complete rewrite. I'll try to get to it later today. cpro 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2[edit]

I'm not so sure this article ought to be redirected to Fallacy of many questions (or Loaded question), that is something quite different IMO. A leading question in itself implies its "correct" answer to the person being asked, while a loaded question contains an implication that the person being asked cannot do anything about, whichever answer he gives.

  • Fallacy of many questions: Did you, John Smith, steel the car before or after you assaulted the plaintiff?
  • Leading question: Was it John Smith who stole your car and assaulted you?

There is a bit of a difference. - sv:Användare:Oskarf

Not merely a definition[edit]

I've removed the redirect and rewrote this entry. I do not believe that "leading question" is necessarily a dictionary defintion anymore than other legal concepts that are currently articles. I think that there could be more useful information in this article than simply a dictionary definition.

Moreover, I agree with the earlier comment that the redirect to a logical fallacy is not really appropriate. Though, perhaps it is related. Mmmbeer 16:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


i think it is suitable, it pertains to 'questioning" in a court proceeding. though not equivalent, still very relevant. dara

Other jurisdictions[edit]

Some good general info, but all the specifics are for US law. Perhaps someone could add whatever magic tag is needed to indicate that experts in other common law systems (eg England) should look at it and expand as necessary. Daniel Barlow (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside courtroom[edit]

The term "leading question" is widely used in academic discourse of how to construct surveys and such. This should be discussed here - I am not sure if we need two separate articles on "leading question" or just one comprehensive one. The article loaded question mentions the term suggestive question; this concept is commonly known as leading question in the aforementioned academic literature: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from loaded question.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestive question: Experimental research by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus[1] has established that trying to answer leading questions can create false memories in eyewitnesses. For example, participants in an experiment may all view the same video clip of a car crash. Participants are assigned at random in one of two groups. The participants in the first group are asked "How fast was the car moving when it passed by the stop sign?" The participants in the other group are asked a similar question that does not refer to a stop sign. Later, the participants from the first group are more likely to remember seeing a stop sign in the video clip, even though there was in fact no such sign. Such findings have been replicated and raise serious questions about the validity of information elicited through leading questions during eyewitness testimony

I had rewritten this section with sources, and this may be of use:
  • Suggestive question: A question that implies that a certain answer should be given in response,[2][3] or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact.[4] Such a question "tricks" the person into answering a specific way that may or may not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional. For example, the phrasing "Don't you think this was wrong?" is more suggestive that "Do you think think this was wrong?" despite the difference of only one word. The former may subtly pressure the respondent into responding "yes," whereas the latter is far more direct.[2] A variation is a question with a false or flawed presupposition that is presented to a respondent in a manner implying it is incontestably true. Experimental research by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has established that trying to answer such questions can create confabulation in eyewitnesses. For example, participants in an experiment may all view the same video clip of a car crash. Participants are assigned at random in one of two groups. The participants in the first group are asked "How fast was the car moving when it passed by the stop sign?" The participants in the other group are asked a similar question that does not refer to a stop sign. Later, the participants from the first group are more likely to remember seeing a stop sign in the video clip, even though there was in fact no such sign.[4] Such findings have been replicated and raise serious questions about the validity of information elicited through poorly phrased questions during eyewitness testimony.
Legitimus (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful, still, one crucial question remains: do we add a section on suggestive question to to the article on leading question, or do we create a separate article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the general legal context of this article, I feel it should be split, taking the "Psychological Research" section with it. While "leading" and "suggestive" are used interchangeably sometimes in sources, there seems to be a noticeable trend towards separate meanings, particularly when used outside the courtroom. Indeed the Copeland source provided above specifically differentiates the two in the context of debate and extemp. Other contexts where suggestive questioning is an issue are witness interviewing and formulation of research survey questions.Legitimus (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are somewhat different things. A leading question, at law, does indeed suggest the answer, but not necessarily through any trickery. If the attorney asks a friendly witness, "Did you go to the store at 4:00 PM to buy a pair of sandals?" this is leading not because it somehow plays on the witnesses emotions, but because the attorney is basically telling the witness what to say. The proper way to elicit the testimony is to ask the witness what they did at 4:00 PM (and when the witness answers that they went to the store, to follow up by asking why). Leading questions are permissible with respect to hostile witnesses, because they are not likely to be merely following the lawyer's lead. bd2412 T 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a new article, incorporating as much of the information taken from both articles as possible: Suggestive question.Legitimus (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Loftus, E.F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony. Harvard University Press.
  2. ^ a b Crisp, Richard D. (1957). Marketing research. Tata McGraw-Hill. p. 100. ISBN 0074635352. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Copeland, James M. "Cross Examination in Extemp" (PDF). National Forensic League. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
  4. ^ a b Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-28777-0.

Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice 74252[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patrickgleason6 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leading_question&oldid=1202125099"