Improving the Accuracy of Eyewitnesses in the Presence of Misinformation with the Plurality Option

Luna, Karlos; Martín-Luengo, Beatriz

doi:10.1002/acp.2845

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…with a mask, a scarf, a stocking, a bandanna, or a balaclava,^a participant can select one alternative (mask; single answer), or three (mask, balaclava, and bandanna; plural answer), depending on her knowledge, to adjust the likelihood that the answer will include the correct alternative (mask). In both classroom (Higham, 2013) and eyewitness (Luna et al, 2011;Luna & Martín-Luengo, 2012b) contexts, research on the plurality option has shown that accuracy increases when participants are allowed to decide on the number of alternatives in the answer.…”

Section: The Regulation Of Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Are regulatory strategies necessary in the regulation of accuracy? The effect of direct-access answers

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that, when people asked to retrieve something from memory have the chance to regulate memory accuracy, the accuracy of their final report increases. Such regulation of accuracy can be made through one of several strategies: the report option, the grain-size option, or the plurality option. However, sometimes an answer can be directly accessed and reported without resorting to such strategies. The direct-access answers are expected to be fast, have high accuracy, and be rated with high probabilities of being correct. Thus, direct-access answers alone could explain the increase of accuracy that has been considered the outcome of regulatory strategies. If so, regulatory strategies may not be needed to explain the previous results. In two experiments, we disentangled the effects of direct-access answers and regulatory strategies in the increase of accuracy. We identified a subset of direct-access answers, and then examined the regulation of accuracy with the plurality option when they were removed. Participants answered questions with six (Exp. 1) or five (Exp. 2) alternatives. Their task was, first, to select as many alternatives as they wanted and, second, to select only two or four alternatives. The results showed that the direct-access answer affected the regulation of accuracy and made it easier. However, the results also showed that regulatory strategies, in this case the plurality option, are needed to explain why the accuracy of final report increases after successful regulation. This research highlighted the relevance of taking direct-access answers into account in the study of the regulation of accuracy.

show abstract

Section: The Regulation Of Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Are regulatory strategies necessary in the regulation of accuracy? The effect of direct-access answers

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eyewitness testimony is very important in court cases [ 1 , 2 ]. Nevertheless, eyewitnesses are prone to make mistakes and testify incorrectly despite the fact they do not mean to lie [ 3 ] and it is now well established that human memory is prone to distortions [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing interrogative suggestibility: The role of self-affirmation and positive feedback

Szpitalak

Polczyk

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interrogative suggestibility, as measured with Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales, consists of an individual's tendency to yield to misleading questions (Yield) and to change answers after negative feedback (Shift). This study aimed to determine whether reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), a technique that aims to boost self-confidence in order to increase the tendency to rely on one’s own memory instead of external cues, can reduce interrogative suggestibility. RSA consists of self-affirmation induced by means of writing down one’s greatest achievements in life and of manipulated positive feedback. The efficacy of two kinds of positive feedback was explored. Shift was reduced by positive feedback relating both to memory and to the feeling that a person is very independent in their judgements, while only feedback related to memory reduced Yield. The results are discussed in terms of the different mechanisms underlying Yield and Shift. Inducing independence of judgements might not have been effective in the case of Yield because to some extent it taps opinions but not the quality of a cognitive process such as memory. An individual may believe in their own opinions and views but still be unsure about the quality of their own memory.

show abstract

“…Broadly speaking, the results of both the report and the plurality option are similar. Participants do not always select the same type of answer, sometimes choosing the single answer, or the option to report, and sometimes the plural answer, or the option to withhold (Higham, ; Higham, Luna, & Bloomfield, ; Luna & Martín‐Luengo, , ), and by doing so, the accuracy of the final report increases. Thus, even though the regulation of accuracy is mostly related to accuracy, frequency of selection of report/withhold and single/plural is key.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the regulation of accuracy to study performance when the correct answer is not known

Luna

Martín-Luengo

2017

Scandinavian J Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined memory performance in multiple-choice questions when correct answers were not always present. How do participants answer when they are aware that the correct alternative may not be present? To answer this question we allowed participants to decide on the number of alternatives in their final answer (the plurality option), and whether they wanted to report or withhold their answer (report option). We also studied the memory benefits when both the plurality and the report options were available. In two experiments participants watched a crime and then answered questions with five alternatives. Half of the questions were presented with the correct alternative and half were not. Participants selected one alternative and rated confidence, then selected three alternatives and again rated confidence, and finally indicated whether they preferred the answer with one or with three alternatives (plurality option). Lastly, they decided whether to report or withhold the answer (report option). Results showed that participants' confidence in their selections was higher, that they chose more single answers, and that they preferred to report more often when the correct alternative was presented. We also attempted to classify a posteriori questions as either presented with or without the correct alternative from participants' selection. Classification was better than chance, and encouraging, but the forensic application of the classification technique is still limited since there was a large percentage of responses that were incorrectly classified. Our results also showed that the memory benefits of both plurality and report options overlap.

show abstract

Improving the Accuracy of Eyewitnesses in the Presence of Misinformation with the Plurality Option

Cited by 20 publications

References 31 publications

Are regulatory strategies necessary in the regulation of accuracy? The effect of direct-access answers

Are regulatory strategies necessary in the regulation of accuracy? The effect of direct-access answers

Reducing interrogative suggestibility: The role of self-affirmation and positive feedback

Using the regulation of accuracy to study performance when the correct answer is not known

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About