Developmental comparisons of explicit versus implicit imagery and reality monitoring

Foley, Mary Ann; Durso, Francis T.; Wilder, Alice; Friedman, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(91)90074-3

Cited by 54 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed in the previous section, children aged 6 and older showed an advantage for the identification of familiar (e.g., self, friend) compared to unfamiliar sources and this was due, in part, to the elaborative processing that was spontaneously evoked (Baker-Ward et al, 1990;Foley et al, 1989). Moreover, children and adults are consistently more accurate at self-other source monitoring under conditions where the self actions required substantial cognitive effort (e.g., Foley, Durso, Wilder, & Friedman, 1991;Johnson, Raye, Foley, & Foley, 1981). Cognitive operations for actions may include anticipating how one would perform the action, anticipating the action's consequences, and reflecting on the cognitive effort associated with carrying out the action (Ratner et al, 2000).…”

Section: Prospective Processingmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Records of these cognitive operations can later be useful cues when discriminating memories of sources that required substantial cognitive effort from other sources that did not elicit such cognitive effort (e.g., Foley et al, 1991). In other circumstances, however, the kinds of cognitive operations produced during events may hinder later source discrimination.…”

Section: Prospective Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been demonstrated in several studies that source judgments regarding material that is easily processed are more difficult than source judgments for material that required some effortful processing (Finke, Johnson, & Shyi, 1988;Foley et al, 1991). Foley et al (1991) presented a set of words and pictures to 6-year-olds, 9-year-olds, and adults. Half of the words and half of the pictures were of simple items and the rest comprised complex items (according to norms published by Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980).…”

Section: The Relationship Of Source Errors To Other Cognitive Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Children’s ability to distinguish between memories from multiple sources: Implications for the quality and accuracy of eyewitness statements

Roberts

2002

Developmental Review

100

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying the sources of memories (e.g., who carried out an action, whether an event happened or was suggested, when an instance of a repeated event occurred) is an important skill in providing accurate accounts of events in forensic investigations. Sensitivity to the nature and development of children's source-monitoring skills can inform interviewing practices. Five perspectives addressing alternate aspects of the development of children's source monitoring are outlined (source-monitoring theory, fuzzy-trace theory, schema theory, the person-based perspective, and the mental-state reasoning model). Six main areas of empirical research stemming from these theories are then discussed with emphasis on how the findings relate to the forensic arena: The similarity of sources, the identity of the agent, prospective processing, the relation of source monitoring to other cognitive skills, metacognitive understanding, and the stringency of source-monitoring decisions. The research reviewed is used to address two main applications to forensic investigations: (a) expectations of child witnesses, and (b) interviewing protocols.Children's ability to distinguish 3 Children's Ability To Distinguish Between Memories From Multiple Sources: Implications For The Quality And Accuracy Of Eyewitness StatementsOne of the most important investigative tools in forensics is the interview. Interviewing victims of and witnesses to crimes is especially important in investigations where there is little physical evidence and the main evidence therefore comes from eyewitness accounts. Concern has been raised about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, however, because many factors can have adverse effects on the length, quality, and accuracy of testimony. In addition to providing an accurate account of exactly what transpired during a crime, witnesses must also accurately identify the sources or origins of event details. Examples include identifying the source of an action (e.g., Who did it, Perpetrator A or Perpetrator B?), the source of a voice (e.g., Who said it, me or the perpetrator?), the reality status of a past event (e.g., Did it really happen or did I just dream it? Did I really see it happen or did I just hear about it?), and identifying one incident from a series of incidents (e.g., Did he touch me the first time he babysat or the last time he babysat? Did he touch me in the bedroom or the bathroom?). In all of these examples, child victims and witnesses must retrieve their memories and identify the precise source of those memories. Research on the development of such "source monitoring" (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; can provide us with accurate expectations of child witnesses' capabilities, contribute to the development of appropriate interviewing protocols, and shed light on interviewers' judgments of child witnesses' credibility.There are numerous source distinctions relevant to the forensic arena (see Table 1 for examples). Witnesses need to monitor various sources contained in a target incident (i.e., t...

show abstract

Section: Prospective Processingmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Prospective Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Relationship Of Source Errors To Other Cognitive Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Children’s ability to distinguish between memories from multiple sources: Implications for the quality and accuracy of eyewitness statements

Roberts

2002

Developmental Review

100

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Discriminating whether information is self-or other-generated is a form of source monitoringthe ability to distinguish between memories based on the origin or source of those memories (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). There is a large body of evidence showing that children's discrimination of internally versus externally generated actions and words increases with age (Foley, Durso, Wilder, & Friedman, 1991;Foley & Johnson, 1985;Foley, et al, 1983;Lindsay, Johnson, & Kwon, 1991;Roberts & Blades, 1998). Source monitoring errors can also be a source of false memories in adults.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of automatic associative processes and children’s false memories

Wimmer

Howe

2009

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link IN PRESS: Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.Do not quote without authors' consent. AbstractWe investigated children's ability to generate associations and how automaticity of associative activation unfolds developmentally. Children generated associative responses using a single-(Experiment 1) or a DRM-like multiple-associates paradigm (Experiment 2). The results indicated that children's ability to generate meaningful word associates, and the automaticity with which they were generated, increased between the ages of 5, 7, and 11 years. These findings suggest that children's domain-specific knowledge base and the associative connections among related concepts are present and continue to develop from a very early age. Moreover, there is an increase in how automatically these concepts are activated with age, something that results from domain general developments in speed of processing. These changes are consistent with the neurodevelopmental literature and together, may provide a more complete explanation of the development of memory illusions.

show abstract

“…Although there were no instructions in the conceptual condition relating to imagination of pictorial representations, participants may have spontaneously imagined pictures of the object while reading the object"s name and imagining a sentence. There is indeed some evidence that participants spontaneously produce images of objects as a result of interacting with the objects" names (e.g., Foley, Durso, Wilder, & Friedman, 1991;Foley & Foy, 2008). Secondly, the imagery task in Experiment 3 was manipulated with reference to Henkel and Franklin"s (1998) perceptual/conceptual similarity manipulation, where the additive condition in which the imagined object was similar to a studied picture both semantically and in terms of perceptual features produced the highest level of source confusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid induction of false memory for pictures

Weinstein

Shanks

2010

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental comparisons of explicit versus implicit imagery and reality monitoring

Cited by 54 publications

References 14 publications

Children’s ability to distinguish between memories from multiple sources: Implications for the quality and accuracy of eyewitness statements

Children’s ability to distinguish between memories from multiple sources: Implications for the quality and accuracy of eyewitness statements

The development of automatic associative processes and children’s false memories

Rapid induction of false memory for pictures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About