Children's eyewitness memory: Repeating post-event misinformation reduces the distinctiveness of a witnessed event

Abstract

Children may incorporate misinformation into reports of witnessed events, particularly if the misinformation is repeated. One explanation is that the misinformation trace is strengthened by repetition. Alternatively, repeating misinformation may reduce the discriminability between event and misinformation sources, increasing interference between them. We tested trace strength and distinctiveness accounts by showing 5- and 6-year-olds an event and then presenting either the "same" or "varying" items of post-event misinformation across three iterations. Performance was compared to a baseline in which misinformation was presented once. Repeating the same misinformation increased suggestibility when misinformation was erroneously attributed to both event and misinformation sources, supporting a trace strength interpretation. However, suggestibility measured by attributing misinformation solely to the event, was lower when misinformation was presented repeatedly rather than once. In contrast, identification of the correct source of the event was less likely if the misinformation was repeated, whether the same or different across iterations. Thus a reduction in the distinctiveness of sources disrupted memory for the event source. Moreover, there was strong association between memory for the event and a measure of distinctiveness of sources, which takes into account both the number of confusable source and their apparent temporal spacing from the point of retrieval.

Developmental Differences across Middle Childhood in Memory and Suggestibility for Negative and Positive Events

“…Additionally, few studies have examined developmental changes in children's susceptibility to the misinformation effects specifically during middle childhood. Most past studies examining misinformation effects in children have focused on early childhood (e.g., Bright‐Paul & Jarrold, , ; Elischberger, ; Memon, Holliday, & Hill, ; Roberts & Powell, ; Roebers & Schneider, ) or age‐related differences between early and middle childhood (e.g., Bright‐Paul, Jarrold, & Wright, ; Holliday, Douglas, & Hayes., ; London et al ., ; Pezdek & Roe, ; Poole & Lindsay, ). Yet child witnesses who fall in the middle childhood age group are more likely than younger child witnesses to testify in criminal cases (e.g., Goodman et al ., ; Gray, ; Quas & Goodman, ).…”

Experimental and meta-analytic evidence that source variability of misinformation does not increase eyewitness suggestibility independently of repetition of misinformation

“…Given the important role that eyewitnesses play in criminal investigations, it is crucial to understand how an eyewitness’ memory may be influenced by receiving the same piece of misinformation multiple times and through more than one source (e.g., from multiple people). Although some reports have shown that repeated exposure to misinformation can exacerbate its influence ( Mitchell and Zaragoza, 1996 ; Walther et al, 2002 ; Ecker et al, 2011 ; Bright-Paul and Jarrold, 2012 ; Schwarz et al, 2016 ; Ecker et al, 2020 ), very little research has independently examined the effects of repetition and source variability on eyewitness suggestibility ( Mitchell and Zaragoza, 1996 ; Foster et al, 2012 ).…”

“…In general, repeated exposure to misinformation increases the misinformation effect ( Mitchell and Zaragoza, 1996 ; Zaragoza et al, 2007 ; Ecker et al, 2011 ; Bright-Paul and Jarrold, 2012 ; Foster et al, 2012 ). This repetition effect has been observed across different participant populations (see Mitchell and Zaragoza, 1996 ; Bright-Paul and Jarrold, 2012 ) and is thought to occur as a result of increased processing fluency or increased belief in the truthfulness of the misinformation (see Arkes et al, 1991 ; Hassan and Barber, 2021 ).…”

“…In contrast to the voluminous literature on repetition effects ( Mitchell and Zaragoza, 1996 ; Zaragoza et al, 2007 ; Ecker et al, 2011 ; Bright-Paul and Jarrold, 2012 ; Foster et al, 2012 ), far less research has investigated whether source variability of misinformation might influence eyewitness suggestibility ( Mitchell and Zaragoza, 1996 ; Foster et al, 2012 ), but data in the memory conformity and credibility literatures can provide a basis for predictions about the effects of source variability. Memory conformity studies, unlike most misinformation studies (which are typically carried out in solitary circumstances), were originally intended to investigate how participants conform to responses made by others (social influences).…”

“… 5 One might wonder whether Bright-Paul and Jarrold (2012) is an outlier. An analysis conducted without that study resulted in a slightly smaller, but still significant effect size of g = 0.34 [0.17, 0.51], p < 0.001.…”