Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm

Gordon, Leamarie T.; Thomas, Ayanna K.

doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0361-2

Cited by 32 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of the impact of immediate retrieval of a witnessed event have generated conflicting results [35]. Some studies have demonstrated that such repeated testing in an eyewitness situation reduce susceptibility to misinformation and can even work as an immunizer against a misinformation effect [36–38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Choice blindness is the failure to detect a discrepancy between a choice and its outcome. The misinformation effect occurs when the recollection of an event changes because new, misleading information about the event is received. The purpose of this study was to merge the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms, and thus examine whether choice blindness can be created for individuals’ recollections of a witnessed event, and whether this will affect their later recollections of the event. Thus, as a way of delivering misinformation the participants ostensibly became their own source of the misleading information. The participants watched a short film and filled out a questionnaire about events shown in the film. Some of their answers were then manipulated using reattachable stickers, which allowed alteration of their original answers. The participants gave justifications for their manipulated choices, and later their recollection of the original event was tested through another questionnaire. Choice blindness was created for a majority of the participants. A majority of the choice blind participants later changed their reported recollection of the event in line with the manipulations, whereas only a small minority of the participants in the control condition changed their recollection. This study provides new information about the misinformation effect, suggesting that this effect also can occur when misinformation is given immediately following presentation of the original stimuli, and about choice blindness and its effects on the recollections of events. The results suggest that memory blindness can be created when people inadvertently supply themselves with misleading information about an event, causing a change in their recollection.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, recent studies have demonstrated elevated false memory rates after taking a test (e.g., Chan & Langley, 2011; Chan & LaPaglia, 2011; Gordon & Thomas, 2014; Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2014). This effect, labeled retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility (Chan et al, 2009), may be related to two underlying mechanisms: a focus on the misinformed items or the overwriting of the original memory trace because of testing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Testing on the Formation of Children's and Adults' False Memories

Brackmann

Otgaar

Sauerland

et al. 2016

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWitnesses are frequently questioned immediately following a crime. The effects of such testing on false recall are inconclusive: Testing may inoculate against subsequent misinformation or enhance false memory formation. We examined whether different types of processing can account for these discrepancies. Drawing from Fuzzy‐trace and Associative‐activation theories, immediate questions that trigger the processing of the global understanding of the event can heighten false memory rates. However, questions that trigger the processing of specific details can inoculate memories against subsequent misinformation. These effects were hypothesized to be more pronounced in children than in adults. Seven/eight‐, 11/12‐, 14/15‐year‐olds, and adults (N = 220) saw a mock‐theft film and were tested immediately with meaning or item‐specific questions. Test results on the succeeding day replicated classic misinformation and testing effects, although our processing hypothesis was not supported. Only adults who received meaning questions benefited from immediate testing and, across all ages, testing led to retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility. © 2016 The Authors. Applied Cognitive Psychology Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Participants who are tested prior to misinformation exposure can recall misinformation at a higher rate than those who are not tested, (cf., Huff, Davis & Meade, 2013;LaPaglia & Chan, 2012;and Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011). While counterintuitive, these data are easily reconciled with test-enhanced new learning effects, where misinformation may be construed as a special case of new learning similar to learning a new list of items (e.g., Gordon & Thomas, 2014;Chan, Thomas & Bulevich, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Davis¹,

Chan²

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

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

Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm

Cited by 32 publications

References 41 publications

Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms

Self-delivered misinformation - Merging the choice blindness and misinformation effect paradigms

The Impact of Testing on the Formation of Children's and Adults' False Memories

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About