The misinformation effect revisited: Interactions between spontaneous memory processes and misleading suggestions

Pansky, Ainat; Tenenboim, Einat; Bär, Sarah

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.12.003

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, the encoding of crime‐relevant information and the application of the CIT were separated by a 1‐week retention interval. This retention interval was proposed by other studies using misinformation (e.g., ). In previous studies, similar time intervals also reduced CIT effect sizes, but effects still occurred (especially for central items; ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Concealed Information Test is Susceptible to Misleading Information

Volz

Bahr

Heinrichs

et al. 2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An approach toward detecting hidden knowledge is the Concealed Information Test (CIT). It relies on the memory of crime-relevant information. This study investigated whether its validity is susceptible to memory distortion by misleading information. A misleading information paradigm was employed to distort memory prior to an interrogation with a CIT. Forty-one participants watched a video with specific crime-related information. After a 1-week retention interval, misleading information was introduced. Afterward, a CIT was performed, followed by a threefold memory test. When misleading information was presented, memory performance was reduced, and no physiological response differences between crime-relevant and crime-irrelevant information were found. Without presenting misleading information, physiological responses differed between responses to crime-relevant and crime-irrelevant information. However, responses in all physiological measures also differed between misleading and irrelevant information. The results indicate that the CIT is susceptible to misleading information, which reduces its validity in specific constellations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Nonetheless, it has to be considered that in practice, even longer retention intervals between the crime and the CIT interrogation have to be faced. To further improve our design, we propose that future studies may shorten the retention intervals or combine them with distractor tasks (see also ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Concealed Information Test is Susceptible to Misleading Information

Volz

Bahr

Heinrichs

et al. 2017

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One notion invokes time-based decay of memory traces (e.g., Barrouillet, Bernardin, Portrat, Vergauwe, & Camos, 2007), although there is now growing evidence against a role of trace decay in forgetting (especially in the case of verbal memoranda in short-term working memory, but also on longer time-scales; see Berman, Jonides, & Lewis, 2009;Brown & Lewandowsky, 2010;Brown, Neath, & Chater, 2007;. Even if memory traces do not literally decay, access to details may decline over time, making reliance on more recently encoded information more likely (for an application of this notion to post-event misinformation effects, see Pansky, Tenenboim, & Bar, 2011;Reyna & Brainerd, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation

Ecker

Lewandowsky

Cheung

et al. 2015

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tTwo types of misinformation effects are discussed in the literature-the post-event misinformation effect and the continued influence effect. The former refers to the distorting memorial effects of misleading information that is presented after valid event encoding; the latter refers to information that is initially presented as true but subsequently turns out to be false and continues to affect memory and reasoning despite the correction. In two experiments, using a paradigm that merges elements from both traditions, we investigated the role of presentation order and recency when two competing causal explanations for an event are presented and one is subsequently retracted. Theoretical accounts of misinformation effects make diverging predictions regarding the roles of presentation order and recency. A recency account-derived from time-based models of memory and reading comprehension research suggesting efficient situation model updating-predicts that the more recently presented cause should have a stronger influence on memory and reasoning. By contrast, a primacy account-derived from primacy effects in impression formation and story recall as well as findings of inadequate memory updating-predicts that the initially presented cause should be dominant irrespective of temporal factors. Results indicated that (1) a cause's recency, rather than its position (i.e., whether it was presented first or last) determined the emphasis that people place on it in their later reasoning, with more recent explanations being preferred; and (2) a retraction was equally effective whether it invalidated the first or the second cause, as long as the cause's recency was held constant. This provides evidence against the primacy account and supports time-based models of memory such as temporal distinctiveness theory.

show abstract

“…Misinformation effects come in two main varieties – either impaired memory for original events, or endorsement of misinformation as being part of the original event [23], [24]. Logically, DRM errors should be more closely related to the latter than the former because, in the DRM method, the lures are not part of the original lists, thus there is no original memory to be impaired.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False Memory ≠ False Memory: DRM Errors Are Unrelated to the Misinformation Effect

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The DRM method has proved to be a popular and powerful, if controversial, way to study ‘false memories’. One reason for the controversy is that the extent to which the DRM effect generalises to other kinds of memory error has been neither satisfactorily established nor subject to much empirical attention. In the present paper we contribute data to this ongoing debate. One hundred and twenty participants took part in a standard misinformation effect experiment, in which they watched some CCTV footage, were exposed to misleading post-event information about events depicted in the footage, and then completed free recall and recognition tests. Participants also completed a DRM test as an ostensibly unrelated filler task. Despite obtaining robust misinformation and DRM effects, there were no correlations between a broad range of misinformation and DRM effect measures (mean r = −.01). This was not due to reliability issues with our measures or a lack of power. Thus DRM ‘false memories’ and misinformation effect ‘false memories’ do not appear to be equivalent.

show abstract

The misinformation effect revisited: Interactions between spontaneous memory processes and misleading suggestions

Cited by 22 publications

References 67 publications

The Concealed Information Test is Susceptible to Misleading Information

The Concealed Information Test is Susceptible to Misleading Information

He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation

False Memory ≠ False Memory: DRM Errors Are Unrelated to the Misinformation Effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About