The Power of a Co‐witness: When More Power Leads to More Conformity

Carol, Rolando N.; Carlucci, Marianna; Eaton, Asia A.; Wright, Daniel B.

doi:10.1002/acp.2912

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As addressed earlier, people are affected by information sources when attempting to collaboratively recall a specific event (Gabbert et al, 2007; French et al, 2008; Hope et al, 2008; Skagerberg and Wright, 2008; Peker and Tekcan, 2009; Carlucci et al, 2011; Carol et al, 2013; Kieckhaefer et al, 2013; Kieckhaefer and Wright, 2014; Wright, 2016; Blank et al, 2017). The present study expands research on information sources to navigation decision-making.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous findings suggest that the perceived credibility of an information source can influence human memory or decision-making (Carol et al, 2013; Blank et al, 2017). Studies on collaborative group work examined the effect of information source with a variety of types of information including word lists, pictures, videos, and spatial locations (Andersson and Rönnberg, 1995; Finlay et al, 2000; Shelton and McNamara, 2004; Wright and Klumpp, 2004; Thorley and Dewhurst, 2007; Ekeocha and Brennan, 2008; Galati et al, 2013; Sjolund et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feedback and Direction Sources Influence Navigation Decision Making on Experienced Routes

Yang

et al. 2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When navigating in a new environment, it is typical for people to resort to external guidance such as Global Positioning System (GPS), or people. However, in the real world, even though navigators have learned the route, they may still prefer to travel with external guidance. We explored how the availability of feedback and the source of external guidance affect navigation decision-making on experienced routes in the presence of external guidance. In three experiments, participants navigated a simulated route three times and then verbally confirmed that they had learned it. They then traveled the same route again, accompanied with no, correct, or incorrect direction guidance, which latter two were provided by a GPS (Experiment 1), a stranger (Experiment 2), or a friend (Experiment 3). Half of the participants received immediate feedback on their navigation decisions, while the other half without feedback did not know if they had selected the correct directions. Generally, without feedback, participants relied on external guidance, regardless of the direction sources. Results also showed that participants trusted the GPS the most, but performed best with their friends as a direction source. With feedback, participants did not show differences in performance between the correct and incorrect guidance conditions, indicating that feedback plays a critical role in evaluating the reliability of external guidance. Our findings suggest that incorrect guidance without any feedback might disturb navigation decision-making, which was further moderated by the perceived credibility of direction sources. We discuss these results within the context of navigation decision-making theory and consider implications for wayfinding behaviors as a social activity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback and Direction Sources Influence Navigation Decision Making on Experienced Routes

Yang

et al. 2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Or, cowitness speed could be noticed, but deemed irrelevant because it comes from an unknown source: cowitness conversations among pairs of strangers versus previously acquainted pairs shows that cowitnesses are less likely to incorporate information from strangers into an eventual memory report (Hope et al, 2008, see also Kieckhaefer & Wright, 2015). Cowitness identification speed might also be deemed irrelevant if witnesses evaluate their cowitness as less powerful than themselves (e.g., Carol, Carlucci, Eaton, & Wright, 2013; Skagerberg & Wright, 2008a). These investigations all suggest that there are conditions under which information from a cowitness might have limited (or no) effects on identification decisions.…”

Section: Cowitness Identification Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cowitness identification speed affects choices from target-absent photospreads.

Douglass¹,

Lucas²,

Brewer³

2020

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Three studies examined the influence of a witness's identification speed on the identification decision of another witness. Hypotheses: Based on research documenting cowitness effects we expected cowitness speed to affect identification decisions from target-absent photospreads. Without prior research testing the effects of cowitness speed, we did not have a specific prediction regarding how fast (vs. slow) cowitness identification decisions would affect participant-witnesses' identification rates in Study 1. Based on the results from Study 1, in Study 2 we predicted that fast (vs. slow) cowitness decisions would increase choices from target-absent photospreads when the cowitness was known to have made a positive identification. In Study 3, cowitnesses rejected the photospread. Based on the previous studies, we hypothesized that fast (vs. slow) cowitness decisions would decrease choices from target-absent photospreads. However, because a photospread rejection is qualitatively different from an identification, this prediction was tentative. Method: In all three studies, participants watched one of 2 stimulus videos with a confederate cowitness. After the video, the confederate made a fast (10 s) or slow (4 min) identification. Participants then attempted an identification from a target-absent photospread. In Study 1 (N ϭ 101), the confederate's decision from the photospread was ambiguous. In Study 2 (N ϭ 200) the confederate announced making a positive identification. In Study 3 (N ϭ 151) the confederate cowitness rejected the photospread. Results: In all 3 studies, participants paired with a fast cowitness made more choices from the target-absent photospread than did participants paired with a slow cowitness. Conclusions: Fast cowitness identifications increased choices from the target-absent photospread regardless of whether a cowitness's decision was ambiguous (Study 1), whether they made an identification (Study 2), or rejected the photospread (Study 3). Given the effects of cowitness speed on identification decisions, it might be advisable to standardize the duration of identification procedures and inform witnesses of this standardization. Public Significance StatementEyewitnesses to crimes often witness events with other people present. Subsequent identification procedures that are conducted in the presence of these cowitnesses could communicate information about the speed of a fellow witness's identification. The current studies demonstrate that cowitness speed affects other witnesses' identification decisions.

show abstract

“…In contrast, participants rely on information more from partners with whom they have a prior relationship (e.g., friends or romantic partners) than from strangers (French, Garry, & Mori, ; Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, & Lenton, ), presumably because of perceived reliability. Perception of power also plays a role; for example, individuals are more likely to incorporate information received from those perceived to have more power in certain relationship dynamics (Skagerberg & Wright, ; but see Carol, Carlucci, Eaton, & Wright, ; Skagerberg & Wright, ), those with a competitive rather than cooperative mindset (Park, Son, & Kim, ), those who speak first (Gabbert, Memon, & Wright, ; Hewitt, Kane, & Garry, ; Wright & Carlucci, ), and those asserting more confidence (Allan & Gabbert, ; Wright et al., ). Finally, personality and emotional factors such as social avoidance (Wright, London, & Waechter, ), increased openness, extraversion, and neuroticism are associated with reduced social contagion, whereas increased agreeableness is associated with greater social contagion (Doughty, Paterson, MacCann, & Monds, ).…”

Section: Social Transmission Of False Memories In Small Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Transmission of False Memory in Small Groups and Large Networks

Maswood

Rajaram

2018

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharing information and memories is a key feature of social interactions, making social contexts important for developing and transmitting accurate memories and also false memories. False memory transmission can have wide-ranging effects, including shaping personal memories of individuals as well as collective memories of a network of people. This paper reviews a collection of key findings and explanations in cognitive research on the transmission of false memories in small groups. It also reviews the emerging experimental work on larger networks and collective false memories. Given the reconstructive nature of memory, the abundance of misinformation in everyday life, and the variety of social structures in which people interact, an understanding of transmission of false memories has both scientific and societal implications.

show abstract

The Power of a Co‐witness: When More Power Leads to More Conformity

Cited by 11 publications

References 41 publications

Feedback and Direction Sources Influence Navigation Decision Making on Experienced Routes

Feedback and Direction Sources Influence Navigation Decision Making on Experienced Routes

Cowitness identification speed affects choices from target-absent photospreads.

Social Transmission of False Memory in Small Groups and Large Networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About