Feedback, Confidence, and False Recall in the DRMRS Procedure

Pirmoradi, Mona; McKelvie, Stuart J.

doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9255-0

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Chua et al (2012) found that the accuracy of one's memory and confidence can diverge, with cognitive confidence influenced by both relevant (target retrieval experience) and irrelevant (cue fluency/familiarity) factors. Similarly, Pirmoradi and McKelvie (2015) observed this dissociation when they manipulated the participants' confidence in their study using false feedback; however, this manipulation did not affect memory performance. In this context, familiarity and availability (see Blake & Castel, 2019), ease of encoding (Hertzog et al, 2003), and retrieval fluency (Koriat & Ma'ayan, 2005) seem to play important roles in this overconfidence bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Memory and metamemory in everyday settings: Assessing recall, recognition, and naming using car brand logos

Mayas,

Prieto,

Montoro

2023

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on incidental memory in everyday settings has shown that frequent exposure to stimuli does not guarantee accurate representation in memory. In two studies, we explored the memory and metamemory of car brand logos using recall (drawing) and recognition tasks (Study 1) or a naming task (Study 2). The results showed that memory accuracy for logos was modest in the recall and recognition tasks; nevertheless, the participants' accuracy in naming the visually displayed car logos was almost perfect. The participants showed overconfidence in their ability to recall and recognize car logos prior to their performance, which was adjusted after completing the recall task. Overconfidence was absent in the naming tasks. These results replicate the modest visual memory and metacognitive adjustments in recall and recognition tasks found in previous studies and contrast with participants' better memory performance and metacognitive adjustments in the naming task.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Memory and metamemory in everyday settings: Assessing recall, recognition, and naming using car brand logos

Mayas,

Prieto,

Montoro

2023

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Post-recall feedback has also been examined using the Deese-RoedigerMcDermott-Read-Solso (DRMRS) paradigm coupled with the implementation of confirming, disconfirming, or no feedback (Pirmoradi & McKelvie, 2014). To examine the effect of post-recall feedback on witness confidence and post-feedback recall, participants were first asked to memorize three word lists.…”

Section: Feedback and Investigative Interviewingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Post-Recall Feedback: Examining Witness Recall Quantity, Accuracy, and Confidence

Mueller¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most eyewitness identification protocols recommend withholding feedback after an identification has been made, at least until a measure of confidence can be gathered.Although much research has examined the impact of post-identification feedback on subsequent witness behavior and confidence, research addressing the importance of postrecall feedback remains largely incomplete. The current study examined the effects of post-recall feedback and question type on subsequent witness recall, confidence, and reports of view of the crime. In line with previous eyewitness identification research, it was predicted that participants receiving confirming post-recall feedback would be more confident in their prior recall compared to participants receiving neutral, no, or disconfirming feedback. One hundred and fifty-eight participants viewed a mock crime video of a robbery followed by an interview which included both open-ended and cued questions. Participants were then given either confirming, neutral, no, or disconfirming feedback and asked about their confidence and the clarity of their view of the perpetrator.Under the pretense that the recording equipment failed, participants were interviewed again using the same question format. The second interview was followed by a series of vii suggestive questions. After the second interview, participants were again asked about their confidence and self-reported quality of view of the perpetrator. Participant interviews were transcribed and scored for quantity, accuracy, and consistency by two blind, independent coders. Analyses revealed that feedback had a systematic impact on confidence such that participants who received confirming feedback were more confident in the overall accuracy of their prior memory accounts than those who received neutral, no, or disconfirming feedback and participants who received neutral or no feedback were more confident in the overall accuracy of their prior memory accounts compared to those in the disconfirming feedback condition. In line with previous eyewitness identification research, there was no significant relationship between recall accuracy and reported confidence. Results from the current study can be used to inform real-world investigative interviewers by highlighting the consequences of offering post-recall feedback.

show abstract

How rejected recommendations shape recommenders' future product intentions

Hall,

Hyodo,

Kristofferson

2023

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a consumer (a recommender) recommends a product to another consumer (a recommendee), it is not uncommon to learn whether the recommendee chose the recommended option (i.e., accepted the recommendation) or a different option (i.e., rejected the recommendation). Our research examines how rejected recommendations affect recommenders' subsequent intentions toward the originally recommended product. We find that upon learning one's recommendation was rejected, recommenders are less likely to repurchase or choose the product in the future. This negative effect emerges because recommenders question their knowledge about the recommended product (i.e., self‐perceived expertise is reduced). Such questioning is more likely to occur when the recommendee is a close other and less likely to occur when the recommended product is perceived to primarily differ from alternatives due to subjective preferences (i.e., horizontal differentiation is salient). Importantly, this rejected recommendation effect is shown to be distinct from a social proof account. The current research contributes to WOM theory by identifying a novel outcome of recommendation interactions—rejected recommendations—and by demonstrating that this outcome can cause consumers to shift away from a product despite having felt positively enough about the product to recommend it to others.

show abstract

Feedback, Confidence, and False Recall in the DRMRS Procedure

Cited by 5 publications

References 44 publications

Memory and metamemory in everyday settings: Assessing recall, recognition, and naming using car brand logos

Memory and metamemory in everyday settings: Assessing recall, recognition, and naming using car brand logos

The Effects of Post-Recall Feedback: Examining Witness Recall Quantity, Accuracy, and Confidence

How rejected recommendations shape recommenders' future product intentions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About