The effects of repeatedly recalling a traumatic event on eyewitness memory and suggestibility

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study were to examine the effects of repeatedly recalling a traumatic event on recall performance and eyewitness suggestibility. We also investigated whether these effects were moderated by the type of details recalled and the completeness of retrieval. Participants watched a video depicting a fatal car accident and were randomly allocated to one of four conditions in which they: (1) repeatedly recalled the traumatic (central) details of the event only (trauma-focused); (2) repeatedly recalled the non-traumatic (peripheral) details of the event only (non-trauma focused); (3) repeatedly recalled the entire video (complete); or (4) did not recall the video at all (no-recall control). Results indicated that repeated complete recall was beneficial for memory retention of the entire traumatic event and that, in general, trauma-related (central) post-event information (PEI) was less likely to be reported than trauma-unrelated (peripheral) PEI. It was also found that repeated trauma-focused recall increased trauma-related confabulations. These results not only illustrate the value of repeated complete recall to best preserve the integrity of eyewitness memory, but, perhaps more critically, warn of the dangers of repeatedly questioning witnesses specifically about the central or traumatic details of an event.     

A re-examination of the misinformation effect by means of visual and verbal recognition tests

Abstract: Two experiments were carried out to investigate the factors that produce the misinformation effect (Loftus, 1979a). Experiment 1 of the present study using the visual recognition test was a replica of Experiment 1 of Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978). The misinformation effect was not found. Experiment 2 differed from Experiment 1 in the following respects: the modality of recognition test was varied between visual and verbal; memorableness (ease of memorization) of the critical objects was varied. The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the original visual memory might be more likely to be recovered with a visual recognition test than with a verbal recognition test, and that the postevent information would not necessarily interfere effectively with memory of an original object of too high or low memorableness, while it works well on objects of intermediate memorableness.     

Eyewitness testimony and memory distortion

Abstract: Do memories change as we acquire new information? Recent research on memory distortion using implicit tests along with research using confidence is reviewed and new studies are presented. Two new studies asked misinformed subjects to provide reasons for their answers. In each study 15% to 27% of subjects said they remembered seeing items they had only read about. In another study subjects were asked to identify the source of misleading items they had seen in slides or read in misleading questions. Subjects were more likely to say they had seen in slides something they read about in the questions than they were to confuse information from two nearly identical sets of slides. Recent work shows that, not only is it possible to distort memory for events, it is possible to implant an entire memory for something that never happened. The evidence is now clear that we can become mentally tricked into making large as well as small changes in the way we recall the past.     

The Confidence of Eyewitnesses in Their Identifications From Lineups

The confidence that eyewitnesses express in their lineup identifications of criminal suspects has a large impact on criminal proceedings. Many convictions of innocent people can be attributed in large part to confident but mistaken eyewitnesses. Although reasonable correlations between confidence and accuracy can be obtained under certain conditions, confidence is governed by some factors that are unrelated to accuracy. An understanding of these confidence factors helps establish the conditions under which confidence and accuracy are related and leads to important practical recommendations for criminal justice proceedings.     

Who is susceptible in three false memory tasks?

ABSTRACT

Decades of research show that people are susceptible to developing false memories. But if they do so in one task, are they likely to do so in a different one? The answer: “No”. In the current research, a large number of participants took part in three well-established false memory paradigms (a misinformation task, the Deese-Roediger-McDermott [DRM] list learning paradigm, and an imagination inflation exercise) as well as completed several individual difference measures. Results indicate that many correlations between false memory variables in all three inter-paradigm comparisons are null, though some small, positive, significant correlations emerged. Moreover, very few individual difference variables significantly correlated with false memories, and any significant correlations were rather small. It seems likely, therefore, that there is no false memory “trait”. In other words, no one type of person seems especially prone, or especially resilient, to the ubiquity of memory distortion.     

Do emotional stimuli enhance or impede recall relative to neutral stimuli? An investigation of two “false memory” tasks

Many eyewitness memory situations involve negative and distressing events; however, many studies investigating “false memory” phenomena use neutral stimuli only. The aim of the present study was to determine how both the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) procedure and the Misinformation Effect Paradigm tasks were related to each other using distressing and neutral stimuli. Participants completed the DRM (with negative and neutral word lists) and viewed a distressing or neutral film. Misinformation for the film was introduced and memory was assessed. Film accuracy and misinformation susceptibility were found to be greater for those who viewed the distressing film relative to the neutral film. Accuracy responses on both tasks were related, however, susceptibility to the DRM illusion and Misinformation Effect were not. The misinformation findings support the Paradoxical Negative Emotion (PNE) hypothesis that negative stimuli will lead to remembering more accurate details but also greater likelihood of memory distortion. However, the PNE hypothesis was not supported for the DRM results. The findings also suggest that the DRM and Misinformation tasks are not equivalent and may have differences in underlying mechanisms. Future research should focus on more ecologically valid methods of assessing false memory.     

误导信息干扰引发的错误记忆研究

本研究借鉴GSS的测验程序,以学习材料视觉呈现、团体实验的形式,在人工条件下模拟了目击者记忆过程．通过操纵材料呈现时间（20秒、40秒）与测验次数（初测、重测）两个变量,考察了该情境下错误记忆的内在机制及其动态变化特点。并进一步研究该情境下受暗示性与社会期望、自尊、心理控制源以及视觉想象生动性的关系。实验发现,40秒比20秒条件下,真实记忆效果更好,错误记忆效果更少;重测比初测时错误记忆更多。可见,真实记忆量的差异是影响错误记忆的主要因素：错误记忆较为顽固,产生后呈增加趋势。相关分析还发现,受暗示性的各种指标（yiddl、yidd2、yidd3和shift）与社会期望、自尊、心理控制源、视觉想象生动性等因素均无显著相关．与桔试的自由回忆成绩成显著负相关。