SPEAKING FROM IGNORANCE 225 mly ssigned either to Positions 1.3.and 5 (or 2.4.and 6) rticinants were debriefed with written statements and verha true partic moved to their positionsand were told the following. e seen as appro s that ed pos s that could have affecte cd.the er ple Social Solidarity.and Independence. and the items used to assess The rate wat to give your rather than rewordings of the same question.All items were rated The ex enter then presented the first nine iten tem.the word Break appeared.and the questions were.when appropriate.worded to highlight the position pa impressions of tha en (if they began in 6).This change of osition was of other varis vide pporting information.First,there were items desi ated as na index ("Sometimes during this experment was face reverse All question Participa tA to B to C.Thus,there were nine trials in which Trust index thousht the people in the other were giving hor index ("I thought the wers (ie..in pretesting.participants w imen.There was also n Anger inde when I could not see well enough to answer correctly by him-or herself not see as clearly and others could"). Index veryclmy answers.I thought it was important to give the correct answer.even if I could not see felt o did ne n giving my a others in better positions would want me to tell them my best when I coul id and said w er I felt like CPknnhe,oterposiosweemindinghcronab s and were not paving each session. Six chairs were arranged in a semicircle as shown in Figure 1. Participants were instructed as in Experiment 1b, then randomly assigned either to Positions 1, 3, and 5 (or 2, 4, and 6), with the true participant sitting in Position 5 or 6. After seeing a sample question while seated in front of the screen, they were moved to their positions and were told the following. First, please sit straight in your chair without leaning to the left or right. Obviously, we have you in your positions for a reason. Second, as the example we just looked at illustrated, the answers you should give will always be a word. When giving your answer, please give the word that is the best answer. Please do not offer answers like “I’m not sure” or “It’s hard to tell.” Instead, please give a single word for your answer. Do the best you can to give the correct answer. Third, please wait to give your answer until I call on you. I will call on you in turn. You [pointing to A, etc.] I will call A, and I’ll call you B, and you C. The experimenter then presented the first nine items, recording answers. After the ninth item, the word Break appeared, and the experimenter instructed participants to move to a new position, one position to the right (if they began in 1, 3, 5) or one position to the left (if they began in 2, 4, 6). This change of position was unforewarned. Thus, the true participant moved either from a position in which he or she could see the correct answer to one in which he or she could not, or the reverse. All questions were answered verbally, and the order of answers always moved from Participant A to B to C. Thus, there were nine trials in which C answered last but could see, perhaps not quite as well as A and B but sufficiently well that the participant had personal visual war￾rant for his or her answers (i.e., in pretesting, participants were able to answer correctly alone from this position). On the other nine trials, the participant was in a position where he or she could not see well enough to answer correctly by him- or herself. After completing the 18 trials of the identification task, partic￾ipants answered a series of questions described below. Finally, all participants were debriefed with written statements and verbal reassurances, indicating that choosing to agree and/or disagree with others’ answers in the SFI situation could be seen as appro￾priate responses to the situation. Motivational indexes. Participants answered 6 two-item mea￾sures that indexed possible motivations that could have affected agreeing or disagreeing during the identification task. The six indexes were Agreement, Correctness, Truthfulness, Pragmatics, Social Solidarity, and Independence, and the items used to assess them are given in Table 2. The two items used for each index were intended to be separate samplings of the motivational domain rather than rewordings of the same question. All items were rated on scales from 1 (Disagree) to 7 (Agree). Although participants answered these questions after having been in both positions, questions were, when appropriate, worded to highlight the position of ignorance and participants’ impressions of that situation. Other indexes. Other items were constructed to serve as in￾dexes of other variables relevant to predictions, or to provide supporting information. First, there were items designated as a Dilemma index (“Sometimes during this experiment I was faced with a dilemma between saying what I knew [from what others had said] and guessing incorrectly since I could not see clearly”), a Trust index (“I thought the people in the other positions were giving honest answers”), and a Suspicion index (“I thought the people in the other positions were actually working with the experimenter and that I was the only real participant in the exper￾iment”). There was also an Anger index (“I felt angry when I could not see as clearly and others could”). Table 2 Motivational Indexes Across Positions of Ignorance and Knowledge Index Agreement When giving my answers, I thought it was important to agree with others as much as possible, regardless of what I could or could not see. Regardless of whether I could see the material on the screen clearly or not, I thought it best to give the answer others had given. Correctness When giving my answers, I thought it was important to give the correct answer, even if I could not see very clearly. I was most concerned to give the correct answer, even if it meant I had to depend on others to provide me with the necessary information. Truthfulness I felt obligated both to give the correct answer and to indicate truthfully what I could or could not see. It felt like it was “cheating” to give the answer that others had given when I could not see clearly. Pragmatics I did not feel like I was contributing much to the experiment if I just repeated what the others had said. In giving my answers, I tried to make a distinctive contribution to “the conversation” rather than just doing what everyone else was doing. Social Solidarity I thought that others in better positions would want me to tell them my best guess, even when I could not see very clearly. Even though I did not know the other persons in this experiment very well, I felt like I should pay attention to their answers and learn from them. Independence I mostly ignored what others said and said whatever I felt like saying. I thought the people in the other positions were minding their own business and were not paying particular attention to my actions. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SPEAKING FROM IGNORANCE 225