Binding an event to its source at encoding improves children’s source monitoring.

Abstract

Children learn information from a variety of sources and often remember the content but forget the source. Whereas the majority of research has focused on retrieval mechanisms for such difficulties, the present investigation examines whether the way in which sources are encoded influences future source monitoring. In Study 1, 86 children aged 3 to 8 years participated in 2 photography sessions on different days. Children were randomly assigned to either the Difference condition (they were asked to pay attention to differences between the 2 events), the Memory control condition (asked to pay attention with no reference to differences), or the No-Instruction control (no special instructions were given). One week later, during a structured interview about the photography session, the 3- to 4-year-olds in the No-Instruction condition were less accurate and responded more often with ‘do not know’ than the 7- to 8-year-olds. However, the older children in the Difference condition made more source confusions than the younger children suggesting improved memory for content but not source. In Study 2, the Difference condition was replaced by a Difference-Tag condition where details were pointed out along with their source (i.e., tagging source to content). Ninety-four children aged 3 to 8 years participated. Children in the Difference-Tag condition made fewer source-monitoring errors than children in the Control condition. The results of these 2 studies together suggest that binding processes at encoding can lead to better source discrimination of experienced events at retrieval and may underlie the rapid development of source monitoring in this age range.

Children’s ability to edit their memories when learning about the environment from credible and noncredible websites

“…In studies by Ratner and colleagues, for example, children who inaccurately claimed that they placed pieces on a collage that a confederate had actually placed, showed improved recall and organizational skills even though the sources—child versus adult—were confused (Ratner & Foley, 2020 ; Ratner et al, 2020). In a more recent study, and in line with Foley and Ratner’s theoretical stance, improving children’s encoding of information increased source confusions, presumably because they remembered more information per se while largely ignoring the sources (Roberts et al, 2016 ). Indeed, in the present study, children needed to search for information from both websites to accurately complete the task (thus they were encouraged to pay attention to the information rather than the sources).…”

“…Naturally, teachers often run their classrooms in terms of one topic at a time using various sources to accomplish learning. As described earlier, children’s memory for the details of two similar events was improved when they were explicitly instructed to do so, but this was at the expense of their source monitoring (remembering what happened, but confusing in which of the events it happened; Roberts et al, 2016 ). One possibility is that presenting similar sources close together leads children to blend the information without reference to source.…”

“…It has been demonstrated many times that deficits in source monitoring do not simply reflect a loss of memory (see Raj & Bell, 2010 , for a review; Roberts et al, 2016 ). In studies of repeated-event memory, for example, children can retrieve details from 3 out of 4 different instances of an event (Brubacher et al, 2018 ).…”

“…A binding effect was also observed in a study on children’s episodic memory. Specifically, Roberts et al ( 2016 ) found that increased memory for the details of two different events actually corresponded with increased source confusion. When the source information was used as a cue to promote reflective attribution, however, source monitoring was improved and the children were less confused (e.g., “Remember that when you wore the cape it was the time that I was the doctor ”).…”

“…Although source confusions can sometimes be troublesome (e.g., when they affect personal relationships, or a court case hinging on eyewitness testimony), confusing sources may be beneficial in other cases. Specifically, there are demonstrations of an inverse relationship between item and source memory (Ratner & Foley, 2020 ; Roberts et al, 2016 ; Sommerville & Hammond, 2007 ). Ratner and Foley found that when a child and an adult jointly perform a task (making a collage), the children who showed the greatest gains in learning (i.e., item memory) were also the most confused about who placed the pieces on the collage (claiming responsibility for placing pieces on the collage that the adult actually placed; also see Ratner et al, 2002 ).…”