To examine personal and interpersonal reality monitoring, 240 participants wrote accounts of invented or self-experienced autobiographical events. Half the participants wrote about a distant event that happened before the age of 15 and half wrote about a recent event that happened after the age of 15. Using a yoked design, participants rated the qualitative details of their own accounts and the details of other participants' accounts. Consistent with previous research, we found that self-experienced accounts contained more qualitative details than invented accounts, and that accounts of recent events contained more qualitative details than accounts of distant events. Participants rated their own accounts as more qualitatively detailed than other participants' accounts, which suggests that they did not base their self-ratings solely on the written details. We discuss the practical and theoretical importance of our findings.

No abstract

No abstract

The current study directly compared witnesses' susceptibility to suggestion across various structures of misleading interview questions. We examined four question structures that varied on numerous dimensions; whether they narrowed the response option to yes or no, whether they included highly specific detail about the witnessed event and whether they presumed the information being suggested to be true. Susceptibility to misinformation was measured by witnesses' responses to the initial interview questions and their responses to subsequent recognition questions. Interview questions that narrowed the response option and contained specific details and questions that encouraged broader responses but presumed certain information were found to be the most harmful. Participants were more likely to agree with the misleading suggestions contained in these question structures-and more likely to falsely report those suggested details at subsequent interview-than misleading suggestions contained in other question structures. The implications are discussed.

We investigated whether the sociolinguistic information delivered by spoken, accented postevent narratives would influence the misinformation effect. New Zealand subjects listened to misleading postevent information spoken in either a New Zealand (NZ) or North American (NA) accent. Consistent with earlier research, we found that NA accents were seen as more powerful and more socially attractive. We found that accents per se had no influence on the misinformation effect but sociolinguistic factors did: both power and social attractiveness affected subjects' susceptibility to misleading postevent suggestions. When subjects rated the speaker highly on power, social attractiveness did not matter; they were equally misled. However, when subjects rated the speaker low on power, social attractiveness did matter: subjects who rated the speaker high on social attractiveness were more misled than subjects who rated it lower. There were similar effects for confidence. These results have implications for our understanding of social influences on the misinformation effect.