This free survey is powered by QUESTIONPRO.COM
 
 
North Carolina State University


INFORMED CONSENT FORM




Argument and Evidence Strength

Principal Investigator: Dr. Thomas M Hess



You are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of the study is to investigate how people make judgments and the factors that influence the judgments they make.



You will be asked to complete a short survey over the internet and submit your answers upon completion. The task will be explained in greater detail at the time it is given.



The amount of time allotted to complete the study is approximately 60 minutes. You will receive 2 credits compensation for participating in this study.



There are no known risks involved with this study. The benefit we anticipate to achieve is to further our knowledge of those factors that influence decision-making and functioning in everyday life. It is hoped that you will also learn something about yourself and about factors that influence your behavior.



The information in the study records will be kept strictly confidential. Data will be stored securely and will be made available only to persons conducting the study unless you specifically give permission in writing to do otherwise. No reference will be made in oral or written reports which could link you to the study. The names of those individuals participating in this study will be maintained and kept in a file –separate from the data—in the Principal Investigator’s office for possible follow-up studies in the future.



If you have any questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher, Thomas M. Hess, Box 7801, NCSU campus, or 515-1729. If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or your rights as a participant in research have been violated during the course of this project, you may contact Dr. Matthew Zingraff, Chair of the NCSU IRB for the Use of Human Subjects in Research Committee, Box 7514, NCSU Campus, (919-513-1834) or Mr. Matthew Ronning, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Research Administration, Box 7514, NCSU Campus (919-513-2148). If you wish for a copy of this form, the experimenter will be happy to make one for you.



PARTICIPATION

Your participation in this study in voluntary; you may decline to participate without penalty and without loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed your data will be returned to you or destroyed.



CONSENT

By clicking on the CONTINUE button below, I am certifying that I have read and understand the above information, and I agree to participate in this study.



 
 
 
* Please Enter Your AGE:
   
 

* SEX?
 
 



align="center">style="">style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">
Survey Instructions:


For this task you will
be presented with a series of situations in which an individual is
being accused of some wrong-doing.  You will be given a brief
description of the accusation being made, followed by several
supportive pieces of information.


For each
piece of information that follows, please rate style="font-style: italic;">the strength of the piece of
information in establishing the individual’s guilt. 
Beneath each statement you will find a 7 point scale ranging
from Very Weak Evidence on the left and Very Strong Evidence on the
right.  The scales will look similar to this: 








style="">Argument
Strength
    





width="100%">


















style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267075" type="radio">  

Very Weak

style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267076" type="radio">  

style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267077" type="radio">  

style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267078" type="radio">  

style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267079" type="radio">  

style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267080" type="radio">  

style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold;"
align="center" valign="top"> value="6267081" type="radio">  

Very Strong



<---------------------
           
      
--------------------->   





 


 


Please indicate your
response for each item by clicking on one of the seven buttons.


Make sure you
respond to every piece of information in the survey before submitting
your data.






 
 







Jim has been accused of hitting another car with his navy blue Ford Explorer and then driving away before police could be called.


Please rate the strength of each piece of information in establishing Jim’s guilt.
 
 
 

The right front fender and headlight on Jim’s Ford Explorer are smashed.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The dent on the damaged car was at the same height as the bumper on Jim’s car.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Broken glass similar to that of Jim’s broken headlight was found near the damaged car.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

An oil stain on the road was found starting at the damaged car and ending at Jim’s driveway.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The damaged car had traces of navy blue paint where it had been hit.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The owner of the damaged car saw a car similar to Jim’s speeding away just before he discovered the damage to his car.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

An eyewitness saw a navy blue Ford Explorer side-swipe the damaged car and then drive away.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

An eyewitness thought the driver of the Ford Explorer was a man with the same color hair as Jim.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A witness remembered seeing a car with Jim’s license plate number around the scene of the accident.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A next-door neighbor reported hearing the accident and going to look out her window where she witnessed a navy blue Ford Explorer driving away from the damaged car.

Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A witness identified Jim from a police line-up as the man she saw driving the hit-and-run vehicle.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The owner of the damaged car reported that the accident happened between 8 and 10 PM, a period during which Jim had driven past the scene of the accident.


Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

An eyewitness thought she saw a dark-colored SUV near the scene of the accident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Jim’s neighbors reported that he was not home at the time of the accident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Jim had been arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct in a public place one time a year before the accident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Jim’s driving record includes 3 different speeding tickets over the past 4 years.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Jim did not have any automobile insurance.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The car was hit about the same time that Jim drives by on his way home from work.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A witness reported that the driver was wearing a baseball hat like the one Jim has.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A local service station owner reported that he fixed Jim’s broken headlight on the night of the accident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A witness noticed that vehicle that side-swiped the car had a bumper sticker of Jim’s favorite football team.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A neighbor reported seeing Jim’s car speeding down the road around the time of the accident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 






Sam is accused of driving a motor-vehicle while impaired under the influence of alcohol.




Please rate the strength of each piece of information in establishing Sam's guilt.
 
 
 

An anonymous witness called the State Highway Patrol to report the license plate number of a vehicle from which beer bottles were being thrown at road signs. The plate was registered to Sam.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam was clocked on radar going 56 mph in a 35 mph zone.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam was swerving recklessly in and out of the appropriate driving lane.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that on at least one occasion, Sam ran almost completely off the right side of the road.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that as soon as Sam pulled over, the driver’s side door opened and Sam began to vomit.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam’s breath smelled strongly of alcohol.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam had difficulty walking in a straight line.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam nearly fell over the hood of his vehicle when he asked Sam to touch his nose with his eyes closed.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam’s speech was slurred and disorganized.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported finding three open containers of alcohol in Sam’s car.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A breathalyzer test taken by Sam indicated that his blood alcohol level was .08.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer watched Sam walk out the door of a local bar and get into the drivers seat of his car.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer pulled Sam over for driving too slow.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer pulled Sam over on the night of New Years Eve.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer pulled Sam over approximately 15 minutes after the local bars closed.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

It was Sam’s 21st birthday.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Sam was seen leaving a fraternity house in which there was a big party.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that passengers in Sam’s car were hanging out the window and yelling a people.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that Sam refused to have blood alcohol levels checked with a breathalyzer, but later agreed to be tested at the police station.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Sam’s driving record shows that Sam was convicted three years ago for driving a motor-vehicle while intoxicated.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A police officer reported that every passenger in Sam’s car readily acknowledged that they were exceedingly intoxicated.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 






A next door neighbor contends that Bob's dog attacked and injured her cat.




Please rate the strength of each piece of information in establishing Bob's guilt.
 
 
 

A hole was dug beneath the fence that separates Bob’s back yard from the neighbor’s back yard where the dog and cat were kept, respectively.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Muddy dog paw prints were found in several locations surrounding the cat’s favorite nap-time spot.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The neighbor’s maid reported seeing the dog struggling to squeeze under Bob’s fence where a hole was found.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The bottom edges of a hole in the wooden fence separating their yard contained bits of hair that matched the dog’s fur on Bob’s dog.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The wooden fence separating the two yards was missing a board, creating an opening that the dog could squeeze through.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The cat’s claws had traces of skin and fur underneath their edges that appeared to match the dog’s skin and fur.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The veterinarian reported that the bite marks found on the cat were similar in size to those that would be made by an animal that was the size of Bob’s dog.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The cat’s owner found bits of the cat’s white fur in Bob’s back yard and inside his pet’s doghouse.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Bob’s dog becomes extremely agitated every time he hears the neighbor’s cat.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Bob admitted that he knew there was a hole in the fence between the yards, and that he had not gotten around to fixing it.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Bob’s dog is half Pit Bull, half German Shepard.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The dog has been seen wandering around the neighborhood outside of Bob’s back yard without a leash by three different individuals on at least two different occasions.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The dog has been picked up by animal control on two different occasions within the last year.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The dog has had 3 complaints filed against him within the past five years for aggressive or threatening behavior towards other neighborhood animals.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Several delivery men have been chased by Bob’s dog in the past.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Bob has verbally threatened the cat prior to the attack for leaving dead mice on his front door step.


Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

For a Christmas present the year before the attack, Bob gave his dog a stuffed chew toy that resembled his neighbor’s cat.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The cat’s owner noticed that Bob’s dog was loose and wandering about the neighborhood on the day her cat was attacked.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The neighbor found her cat covered with what appeared to be dog saliva.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Ever since the alleged attack, the neighbor’s cat runs and hides whenever it hears Bob’s dog barking.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The neighbors heard barking and commotion in the cat owner’s backyard on the day the attack occurred.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 






John is being accused of shoplifting clothes from a local department store.




Please rate the strength of each piece of information in establishing John's guilt.
 
 
 

The store’s security camera recorded John trying to put clothes into his coat pocket.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A security officer observed the defendant trying to put clothes into his coat pocket.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A store clerk reported seeing John balling up a small shirt, but when the clerk approached to offer assistance, John returned the shirt and walked away.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A store clerk reported seeing John enter the dressing room with several articles of clothing but come out empty handed.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The store’s alarm system went off when John tried to leave.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

John began running when the alarm sounded as he left the store.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

When John was asked by security officers why the alarm was set off, he began vehemently denying, “stealing clothes,” even though the officers never mentioned anything about clothes.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Two articles of clothing were found in John’s coat pockets by security officers.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The brand names of two articles of clothing found in John’s backpack were brands sold only in that store.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

John could not produce a receipt for two articles of clothing found in his backpack.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The tags for two articles of clothing matching the sizes and brand names of articles worn by John were found lying on the floor in the dressing room after he left.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

John had been arrested for suspected shoplifting on one other occasion 2 years ago but was not convicted.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A store clerk reported seeing John loitering on the premises four different times within the last week before the suspected shoplifting incident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A store clerk reported seeing John enter the store 5 or 6 times the day of the incident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Store clerks and security officers reported that John entered the store wearing a large coat.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The security alarm was set off at the same time John and several other customers were seen passing through the security equipment near the exit.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

John, who was wearing headphones at the time, did not stop walking away when the security alarm was set off.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

John did not acknowledge the store clerk’s presence when the clerk was walking behind him in the noisy store and verbally requesting to see a receipt.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Security officers reported that when they ordered John to “Stop” as he left the store, John continued walking away.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Security officers reported that when asked about setting off the store’s security alarm, John became belligerent, uncooperative, and extremely agitated.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

John did not allow the security officer to see what was inside the backpack that he was wearing.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The cash register clerk on duty did not remember John being rung up.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Another customer thought she saw John stick something in his backpack.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 






Owen, a private contractor, is accused of violating an oral contract with a client. The client claims to have paid in full, but work on his outdoor shed was never adequately completed.




Please rate the strength of each piece of information in establishing Owen's guilt.
 
 
 

* The client has a copy of the shed’s blueprints indicating that his shed is missing the entire lawnmower storage section.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The hinges on the shed doors Owen installed came unscrewed within the first month of use, and have not been replaced.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The client has a credit card receipt for quality treated wood that Owen was supposed to use for building the shed, but he used cheap untreated wood instead.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The client’s $1500 invoice at the lumber yard was attached to another invoice for the same quantity of wood only $1000 cheaper, and both invoices were signed by Owen on the same day.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The client’s neighbor overheard Owen bragging to an associate about how much money he was going to make ripping the client off.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Owen’s advertisement guarantees 100% customer satisfaction, but he has refused the client’s requests that he come back to fix the shed’s obvious flaws.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Three witnesses other than the client heard the contractor agree to build all the specifications set forth by the client when they negotiated the terms of the oral contract.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The client has his check stub and his bank statement indicating that the contractor was paid in full, but several of the client’s specifications have yet to be met.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* A copy of the client’s payment check has the dimensions, {[24’W] x [12’L] = 288sq.ft.} written on the line where it says, “for___________” but the shed Owen built is only 200sq.ft.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The client has a voicemail message from Owen assuring him that the work was “almost finished,” but Owen hasn’t come back since then.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Over the last 3 months’ phone records indicate that the client made over 30 attempts to contact Owen, but Owen never answered his phone or returned the client’s calls.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

One of the client’s neighbors reported that they think the contractor was drinking beer while he was working.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

One of the client’s neighbors reported that the contractor took naps under a shady tree in the front yard.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The shed was not built on a foundation at the height the client specified, and as a result, it floods almost every time it rains.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The client’s 10 year old daughter says she overheard Owen tell someone over the phone that the client was a, “dummy head” and a “sucker.”



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The shed’s roof began leaking excessively in 3 different places within 3 months of its construction.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The client has some messily scribbled notes that he left for Owen during the first week of construction to reiterate the terms of their agreement , but most of the notes are too messy to make out.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

The client has a bad copy of his first payment, and he claims that on the line “for_________” he wrote the dimensions of the shed he requested, however, little if anything can be deciphered by anyone else.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Both the client and Owen agree that a storage shed was to be built, but they disagree on many important details like the shed’s exact dimensions and how long it should take to complete.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

A previous client of Owen’s reported that half of a wooden fence he built had to be replaced after one year because the wood was never treated with a sealant to repel water.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

One of the client’s neighbors said she was “pretty sure” she heard the client tell the contractor that he wanted the roof to be “almost flat,” but later commented that maybe he wanted it to resemble a “pointy witch hat” which is the way Owen built it.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

Three witnesses observed the contractor accepting a check from the client, and then eagerly shaking hands with him while assuring total satisfaction.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 






Bruce, a 13 year-old boy, was accused of vandalizing a neighbors home that was under construction by shooting out windows with a pellet gun.




Please rate the strength of each piece of information in establishing Bruce's guilt.
 
 
 

* Two windows on the bottom floor of the home were shattered when shot with a pellet gun similar to one owned by Bruce.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Six months before the alleged vandalism took place, Bruce’s father gave him a pellet gun for his birthday.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce had bought pellets for his gun two days before the vandalism occurred.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The pellets on the floor in the new house were similar in size and shape to those used by Bruce when he target shoots.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* A set of bicycle tracks at the crime scene were very similar in appearance to those that would be made by Bruce’s bike.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Footprints found near the house matched Bruce’s both in shoe size and tread pattern.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* A construction worker saw Bruce roaming around the construction site two days before the vandalism occurred.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce’s family lives one block down the street from the lot where the new house is being built.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The night of the alleged vandalism, Bruce slept outside in a tent in his backyard.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce could not produce an alibi for the night of the alleged vandalism.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Witnesses have seen Bruce wandering the neighborhood late at night (past 11:00pm) on several occasions.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce’s pellet gun was powerful enough to break a window from 50 yards away, and when fired, the pistol makes very little noise.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce had been suspended from school for his involvement in a fight.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Several kids at Bruce’s school said that they could imagine him vandalizing property.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce refused to talk to the police when they questioned him about the incident.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* The day after the incident, police found some empty pellet gun ammunition boxes in Bruce’s back yard.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce’s baseball cap was found near the house.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce’s parents acknowledge that he sometimes sneaks out at night.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce’s parents found a flashlight in Bruce’s room the day after the vandalism occurred.



Very Weak Very Strong
 
 

* Bruce’s friends say that he brags about shooting out windows in houses and buildings.



Very Weak Very Strong
 

Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this survey.
Survey Software Powered by QuestionPro Survey Software