Telling a good story: The effects of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility

Abstract

Witnesses are likely to describe a crime many times before testifying or encountering misinformation about that crime. Research examining the effect of retrieval on later suggestibility has yielded mixed results. LaPaglia and Chan manipulated whether misinformation was presented in a narrative or misleading questions, and they found that retrieval increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented in a narrative, but reduced suggestibility when the same misinformation was presented in questions. In the current study, we aimed to address why these differences occurred. Specifically, we examined whether contextual detail and narrative coherence during misinformation exposure influenced the relation between retrieval and suggestibility. Participants watched a robbery video and some were questioned about the event afterwards. They were then exposed to misinformation presented in a narrative ( Experiment 1 ) or questions ( Experiment 2 ) before taking a final memory test. Testing enhanced suggestibility when the misinformation phase reinstated contextual information of the event, but not when the misinformation phase included few contextual details–regardless of whether the misinformation was in a narrative or questions. In Experiment 3, disrupting narrative coherence by randomizing the order of contextual information eliminated retrieval-enhanced suggestibility. Therefore, context processing during the post-event information phase influences whether retrieval enhances or reduces eyewitness suggestibility.

Does Retrieval Enhance Suggestibility Because It Increases Perceived Credibility of the Postevent Information?

“….). Consistent with this notion, when contextual information is made impoverished, the RES effect is weakened substantially (LaPaglia & Chan, 2019).…”

Protective effects of testing across misinformation formats in the household scene paradigm

“…Extending this work, LaPaglia and Chan (2019) compared the effects of initial testing for narratives (Experiment 1) and questions (Experiment 2) that either did or did not reinstate contextual information. For both formats, RES occurred when cohesive contextual information from the initial event was reinstated during the misinformation phase, but not when few contextual details were presented (again, a PET was not obtained).…”

“…Nonetheless, there was certainly more narrative structure in our narrative condition than in our questions condition, yet the magnitude of the PET pattern was consistent between formats (cf. LaPaglia & Chan, 2019). A remaining possibility is that the occurrence of RES may depend on having an overlapping narrative structure between the event and the misinformation phase, as was the case in LaPaglia and Chan (2019).…”

“…LaPaglia & Chan, 2019). A remaining possibility is that the occurrence of RES may depend on having an overlapping narrative structure between the event and the misinformation phase, as was the case in LaPaglia and Chan (2019). In our narrative condition, there was still a disconnect between our event (no narrative structure) and our misinformation phase (narrative structure).…”

“…In contrast, studies showing a PET have typically embedded misinformation in cued-recall questions (e.g., Gabbert et al, 2012; Lane et al, 2001; Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011), except Huff et al (2013) and Huff et al (2016), who embedded misinformation via a social-contagion format (i.e., fabricated household scene recall sheets). LaPaglia and Chan (2013; see too LaPaglia & Chan, 2019) examined whether misinformation format dictates whether RES or a PET occurred in their crime-video paradigm. Importantly, misinformation presented via a written narrative produced a RES pattern, whereas misinformation presented via cued-recall questions produced a PET pattern.…”