Memory impairment in the weapon focus effect

Saunders, Jo

doi:10.3758/mc.37.3.326

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second finding that is consistent with the inhibitory account is that retrieval-induced forgetting is dependent on the strength of the competitor (Anderson et al, 1994;Saunders, 2009). Specifically, retrieval-induced forgetting occurs only when the competing items are strong (as measured by taxonomic strength).…”

Section: Experiments 1 Does Mental Imagery Evoke Retrieval-induced Forsupporting

confidence: 68%

Retrieval-induced forgetting and mental imagery

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present article, we present four experiments in which we examined whether mental imagery can initiate retrieval-induced forgetting. Participants were presented with word pairs (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or narratives (Experiment 4) and then engaged in selective mental imagery about half of the details from half of the categories. The results indicated that mental imagery can produce the same pattern of impairment as retrieval practice (Experiment 1) and postevent questioning (Experiment 4). Additionally, mental imagery-invoked, retrieval-induced forgetting was found for category cued recall (Experiments 1, 3, and 4) and cued recall (Experiment 2); it was found to dissipate across a 24-h delay, but only when there was no pre-delay test (Experiment 3). Such retrieval-induced forgetting was also found for imagining from the first-person and third-person perspectives (Experiment 4). From these findings, we suggest that the underlying retrieval processes behind mental imagery can initiate retrieval-induced forgetting. The findings are discussed in terms of inhibitory processes

show abstract

Section: Experiments 1 Does Mental Imagery Evoke Retrieval-induced Forsupporting

confidence: 68%

Retrieval-induced forgetting and mental imagery

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Zaragoza and Lane (1994) found that presenting misinformation in questions increased suggestibility relative to presenting misinformation in a narrative. Similarly, Saunders (2009) reported that misleading questions are more effective at inducing false memories than is a narrative, though this effect was only observed for misinformation regarding central details and not peripheral details. Gobbo (2000) showed that presenting misinformation in questions alone produced a smaller misinformation effect than presenting misinformation in both questions and a narrative (such that the misinformation was repeated).…”

Section: Testing Increases Suggestibility For Narrative-based Misinfomentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of recent studies have found that recalling details of an event following its occurrence can increase people's suggestibility to later presented misinformation. However, several other studies have reported the opposite result, whereby earlier retrieval can reduce subsequent eyewitness suggestibility. In the present study, we investigated whether differences in the way misinformation is presented can modulate the effects of testing on suggestibility. Participants watched a video of a robbery and some were questioned about the event immediately afterwards. Later, participants were exposed to misinformation in a narrative (Experiment 1) or in questions (Experiment 2). Consistent with previous studies, we found that testing increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented via a narrative. Remarkably, when misinformation was presented in questions, testing decreased suggestibility. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Iowa State UniversityAuthor Note These data were collected as part of the dissertation of the first author. We thank the following research assistants for their help with data collection: Jennifer Dillon, Kelsi Dodd, and Jennifer Piatak.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica LaPaglia, Department of TESTING AND SUGGESTIBILITY2 Abstract A number of recent studies have found that recalling details of an event following its occurrence can increase people's suggestibility to later presented misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). However, several other studies have reported the opposite result, whereby earlier retrieval can reduce subsequent eyewitness suggestibility (e.g., Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011). In the present study, we investigated whether differences in the way misinformation is presented can modulate the effects of testing on suggestibility. Participants watched a video of a robbery and some were questioned about the event immediately afterwards. Later, participants were exposed to misinformation in a narrative (Experiment 1) or in questions (Experiment 2).Consistent with previous studies, we found that testing increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented via a narrative. Remarkably, when misinformation was presented in questions, testing decreased suggestibility. In a recent New Jersey ruling, there was a reformulation of juror instructions aimed at clarifying how eyewitness testimony should be evaluated (Weiser, 2012). The new instructions educate jurors on findings from decades of research demonstrating the fallibility of eyewitness memory. Indeed, memory for an event or perpetrator can be drastically altered when witnesses are exposed to misleading postevent information (the misinformation effect; for a review see Loftus, 2005). More relevant to the present research is a counterintuitive finding that has been reported in a series of studies. Namely, that recalling the details of an event can increase eyewitness suggestibility to later presented misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009;Chan & L...

show abstract

“…Some researchers have defined central and peripheral information as details that are important and incidental to the thrust of the witnessed event, respectively (Dalton & Daneman, 2006;Loftus 1979;Wright & Stroud, 1998). Others defined centrality based on the frequency that those details are reported in free recall, with more frequently recalled items classified as central and less frequently recalled items as peripheral (Heath & Erickson, 1998;Saunders, 2009). We opted to define item centrality in the latter way because this definition is quantifiable and arguably more objective.…”

Section: Applied Implications Of Retrieval-enhanced Suggestibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediately recalling a witnessed event can increase people's susceptibility to later postevent misinformation. But this retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES) effect has been shown only when the initial recall test included specific questions that reappeared on the final test. Moreover, it is unclear whether this phenomenon is affected by the centrality of event details. These limitations make it difficult to generalize RES to criminal investigations, which often begin with free recall prior to more specific queries from legal officials and attorneys. In 3 experiments, we examined the influence of test formats (free recall vs. cued recall) and centrality of event details (central vs. peripheral) on RES. In Experiment 1, both the initial and final tests were cued recall. In Experiment 2, the initial test was free recall and the final test was cued recall. In Experiment 3, both the initial and final tests were free recall. Initial testing increased misinformation reporting on the final test for peripheral details in all experiments, but the effect was significant for central details only after aggregating the data from all 3 experiments. These results show that initial free recall can produce RES, and more broadly, that free recall can potentiate subsequent learning of complex prose materials. Immediately recalling a witnessed event can increase people's susceptibility to later post-

show abstract

Memory impairment in the weapon focus effect

Cited by 20 publications

References 32 publications

Retrieval-induced forgetting and mental imagery

Retrieval-induced forgetting and mental imagery

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About