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

Wilford, Miko M.; Chan, Jason C. K.; Tuhn, Sam J

doi:10.1037/xap0000001

Cited by 46 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 76 publications

(117 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, initial retrieval accuracy was far higher (~89% of questions were recalled correctly) in Saunders and MacLeod's study than was typically observed in studies that reported RES (~55% initial test accuracy). This is important because highly recallable items (i.e., easy items, central items) are more resistant to the RES effect than items that are more difficult to remember (e.g., peripheral items, Chan & Langley, 2011;Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2012). It may be that Saunders and MacLeod's critical items were easily remembered and thus not susceptible to the RES effect.…”

Section: Testing and Suggestibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

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

Section: Testing and Suggestibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RES has been shown using a variety of materials, including video materials ranging from about 5 min (Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2014) to 40 min in length (Chan et al, 2009). Researchers have also demonstrated RES using slideshows instead of videos (Rindal et al, 2016).…”

Section: Encoding Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Chan

Manley

Lang

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitnesses are often repeatedly interviewed about the same crime, and they might be exposed to misleading information between these interviews. Taking a memory test before being exposed to misinformation can ironically increase the likelihood that an eyewitness would fall prey to the misinformation effect-a finding termed Retrieval-Enhanced Suggestibility (RES). In this paper, we outline the motivation behind the original research on RES, summarize the theoretical explanations that have been used to explain this finding, and provide a review of the extant empirical findings. We then report the results of two new experiments that examined whether participants, upon being informed that they had provided inconsistent responses during the prior recall tests, could overcome the RES effect during a final recognition test in which the correct event detail and the misinformation were offered as response options. The results showed that RES persisted in this recognition test, and the level of inconsistencies shown by participants during the prior recall tests predicted their final recognition performance, such that more inconsistent witnesses were also more error-prone during the final recognition test-but this relation was stronger for misinformation-induced inconsistencies than for spontaneously-produced inconsistencies.

show abstract

“…Here, we refer to this idea as the borrowed time hypothesis. Specifically, we argue that testing participants on the name (with or without feedback) leads them to perseverate on learning the name, either because receiving a test on an item increases its perceived importance (Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2014;Dirkx, Thoma, Kester, & Kirschner, 2014), its perceived probability of being tested again later ), or because being tested on a item highlights its difficulty (Kang, 2010). As a result, participants continue to study the name (when feedback is given) or continue to attempt retrieval of the name (when feedback is not given) when they were supposed to 1 Specifically, Finn and Roediger noted that "This impairment did not appear to be due to selective attention to the feedback because no significant differences emerged between the tests with feedback and the test without feedback conditions in the recall of professions" (p. 1669).…”

Section: Finn and Roediger Concluded That "A Clear Theoretical Accounmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying on borrowed time: How does testing impair new learning?

Davis¹,

Chan²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieving studied materials often enhances subsequent learning of new materials (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2014). However, retrieval has also been shown to impair new learning (Finn & Roediger, 2013). Here we attempted to determine when retrieval enhances and when it impairs new learning. We argue that testing impairs new learning when one intermixes testing with new learning, which biases participants to relearn the tested information at the expense of the new information. We refer to this as the borrowed time hypothesis. Consistent with this idea, we reduced or eliminated testimpaired new learning by discouraging time borrowing. Moreover, testing enhanced new learning only when the test trials and new learning trials were presented in separate blocks. These results suggest that test-impaired new learning and test-enhanced new learning are based on different underlying mechanisms, and that they are not simply the flipped side of the same coin. Learning, Memory, and Cognition (2015) in press. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record STUDYING ON BORROWED TIME 2 AbstractRetrieving studied materials often enhances subsequent learning of new materials

show abstract

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

Cited by 46 publications

References 76 publications

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

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

Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation.

Studying on borrowed time: How does testing impair new learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About