The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source

We examined the possibility that eyewitness suggestibility reflects failures of the processes by which people normally discriminate between memories derived from different sources. To test this hypothesis, misled and control subjects were tested either with a yes/no recognition test or with a "source monitoring" test designed to orient subjects to attend to information about the sources of their memories. The results demonstrate that suggestibility effects obtained with a recognition test can be eliminated by orienting subjects toward thinking about the sources of their memories while taking the test. Our findings indicate that although misled subjects are capable of identifying the source of their memories of misleading suggestions, they nonetheless sometimes misidentify them as memories derived from the original event. The extent to which such errors reflect genuine memory confusions (produced, for example, by lax judgment criteria) or conscious misattributions (perhaps due to demand characteristics) remains to be specified.     

Contextual overlap and eyewitness suggestibility

Studies of eyewitness suggestibility have traditionally used a paradigm that maximizes the extent to which the postevent interview overlaps with the witnessed event in terms of narrative content, narrative structure, and environmental context. The present study explored whether these dimensions of overlap contribute to people's tendency to confuse suggested details for those they have actually witnessed. We systematically manipulated the extent to which the postevent questionnaire overlapped with the witnessed event. Across two experiments, overlap in narrative content, narrative structure, or environmental context was not found to increase suggestibility effects, even though the manipulation did have other memory effects (e.g., it improved cued recall of the actual source of the suggestions, Experiment 2). These findings suggest that understanding the interaction between the structure and content of the objective context in which misinformation is encountered and various remembering contexts (e.g., recognition vs. recall) is important for advancing our understanding of source confusion in an eyewitness situation.     

Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for performed tasks

Memory for subject-performed tasks—that is, for simple actions such as lifting a pen, which subjects perform overtly—is better than memory for verbal tasks—that is, when subjects only listen to the action phrases. Here I investigated whether this effect depends on actual performance or whether it also shows up when there is only an intention to perform the task. Koriat, Ben-Zur, and Nussbaum (1990) found that the intention to perform items at test enhanced free recall more than did verbal tasks. Brooks and Gardiner (1994), however, were not able to replicate this finding. In four experiments, I attempted to reconcile this discrepancy by comparing subject-performed tasks, to-beperformed tasks, and verbal tasks under different conditions. The outcome depended on whether a within-subjects design or a between-subjects design was used. In the between-subjects design, memory for subject-performed tasks was better than memory for to-be-performed tasks, and both of these led to better recall performance than did verbal tasks. In a within-subjects design, in contrast, memory for to-be-performed tasks was no different from memory for verbal tasks. These results were independent of whether the test mode was congruent or incongruent. Thus, the discrepant findings of Koriat et al. and of Brooks and Gardiner seem to be due to the design used, pointing to encoding processes as the critical variable. The present results are interpreted to show that actual performance of actions at study provides more information than does only the intention to perform actions at test.     

The dark side of testing memory: repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility

Eyewitnesses typically recount their experiences many times before trial. Such repeated retrieval can enhance memory retention of the witnessed event. However, recent studies (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009) have found that initial retrieval can exacerbate eyewitness suggestibility to later misleading information--a finding termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES). Here we examined the influence of multiple retrieval attempts on eyewitness suggestibility to subsequent misinformation. In four experiments, we systematically varied the number of initial tests taken (between zero and six), the delay between initial testing and misinformation exposure (~30 min or 1 week), and whether initial testing was manipulated between- or within-subjects. University undergraduate students were used as participants. Overall, we found that eyewitness suggestibility increased as the number of initial tests increased, but this RES effect was qualified by the delay and by whether initial testing occurred in a within- or between-subjects manner. Specifically, the within-subjects RES effect was smaller than the between-subjects RES effect, possibly because of the influence of retrieval-induced forgetting/facilitation (Chan, 2009) when initial testing was manipulated within subjects. Moreover, consistent with the testing effect literature (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), the benefits of repeated testing on later memory were stronger after a 1-week delay than after a 30-min delay, thus reducing the negative impact of RES in long-term situations. These findings suggest that conditions that are likely to occur in criminal investigations can either increase (repeated testing) or reduce (delay) the influence of RES, thus further demonstrating the complex relationship between eyewitness memory and repeated retrieval.     

A framework for reproductive memory tasks

The present papers present a framework for reproductive memory tasks. It is proposed that the notion of predictability of presentation is of prime importance to performance in reproductive tasks and that this notion may be decomposed into three critical dimensions, viz. the item expectancy, the type-of-recall and recall expectancy dimensions. The first dimension refers to the manipulation of inter-item intervals; the second to backward, forward or free recall and the third to when recall is prompted. Moreover, a study was conducted, wherein these three dimension were combined. The main results demonstrated superior performance for prerecency items (the first four items) with fast inter-item intervals in the beginning of list presentation and also reliable effects for recency items (the last four items). Precueing and postcueing (recall expectancy) interacted with the item expectancy dimension and also with the type of recall expectancy dimension in systematic ways. The data obtained could not be accouted for a traditional encoding, storage, retrieval or rehearsal terms, whereas the predictability notion seemed more viable. Finally, implications for a general interactionistic theory were also discussed, where the interplay between cognitive skills and predictability characteristics of the task constitute the basic factors.     

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.     

Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks

What is the nature of the representation underlying memory for future tasks such as calling the doctor or buying milk? If this representation consists of a verbal instruction that is translated into action at the time of retrieval, then memory should be better when tested via verbatim recall of the instruction than when tested via actual performance. Three experiments rejected this possibility, indicating better memory for a perform mode of report than for a recall mode of report. This was true in Experiment 1 in which subjects saw a series of verbal instructions (e.g., “move the eraser,” “lift the cup,” “touch the ashtray”), with advance information regarding the mode of report required during testing. In Experiment 2, the advance cue was valid only in 75% of the trials. Memory depended more heavily on the expected mode of report thanon the actual mode ofreport, suggesting that the perform superiority is due to processes that occur during encoding. In Experiment 3, subjects learned 20 phrases depicting minitasks were remembered by subjects tested via performance than by subjects tested via verbatim recall. A second part of Experiment 3 also indicated superior memory when a perform test was expected, regardless of which mode of report was actually required. The results were compared with the finding that subject-performed tasks are better remembered thanare their verbal instructions, which suggeststhat the representation underlying memory for future assignments-may-take advantage of the imaginal-enactive properties ofthe envisagedacts. Other possible differences between memory for to-be-recalled tasks and memory for to-be-performed tasks are discussed.     

Mechanisms of eyewitness suggestibility: tests of the explanatory role hypothesis

In a recent paper, Chrobak and Zaragoza (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 827–844, 2013) proposed the explanatory role hypothesis, which posits that the likelihood of developing false memories for post-event suggestions is a function of the explanatory function the suggestion serves. In support of this hypothesis, they provided evidence that participant-witnesses were especially likely to develop false memories for their forced fabrications when their fabrications helped to explain outcomes they had witnessed. In three experiments, we test the generality of the explanatory role hypothesis as a mechanism of eyewitness suggestibility by assessing whether this hypothesis can predict suggestibility errors in (a) situations where the post-event suggestions are provided by the experimenter (as opposed to fabricated by the participant), and (b) across a variety of memory measures and measures of recollective experience. In support of the explanatory role hypothesis, participants were more likely to subsequently freely report (E1) and recollect the suggestions as part of the witnessed event (E2, source test) when the post-event suggestion helped to provide a causal explanation for a witnessed outcome than when it did not serve this explanatory role. Participants were also less likely to recollect the suggestions as part of the witnessed event (on measures of subjective experience) when their explanatory strength had been reduced by the presence of an alternative explanation that could explain the same outcome (E3, source test + warning). Collectively, the results provide strong evidence that the search for explanatory coherence influences people’s tendency to misremember witnessing events that were only suggested to them.     

Misleading postevent information and working memory capacity: an individual differences approach to eyewitness memory

The present study examines how individual differences in working memory capacity relate to the effect of misleading postevent information on memory for the original event. Participants were shown a film of a crime event and were then asked to unscramble a narrative that included misinformation regarding some of the film's details. Additionally, the working memory capacity of the participants was measured using the operation‐word span task. Finally, in a free recall test, participants recalled fewer correct details in the misinformation condition compared to the control condition. This effect was negatively correlated with working memory capacity. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The career resources model: an integrative framework for career counsellors

Changes in the nature of work and organisations have led to an increased need for self-directed career management (SDCM). However, there is no consensus in the literature of what constitutes SDCM and many related concepts have been proposed. Integrating previous research across different conceptualisations of SDCM, the article proposes four critical career resources which are essential for career development in the modern context: human capital resources, social resources, psychological resources and identity resources. Implications of this framework for counselling practice are presented.     

How events are reviewed matters: effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility

Witnesses to a crime or an accident perceive that event only once, but they are likely to think or talk about it multiple times. The way in which they review the event may affect their later memory. In particular, some types of review may increase suggestibility if the witness has been exposed to postevent misleading information. In Experiment 1, participants viewed a videotaped crime and then received false suggestions about the event. We found that participants who were then asked to focus on specific details when reviewing the event were more suggestible on a later source memory test than participants asked to review the main points. The findings of Experiment 2 suggest that this effect was not due to a criterion shift at test. These findings indicate that the type of rehearsal engaged in after witnessing an event can have important consequences for memory and, in particular, suggestibility.     

The construct of work commitment: testing an integrative framework

This study meta-analytically examined extensive literature associated with work commitment. The primary purposes were to (a) cumulate correlations among dimensions of work commitment to see which were intercorrelated and (b) determine impact of work commitment dimensions and subdimensions on specific outcome variables (job satisfaction, job performance, turnover intentions, and turnover). Results were cumulated across 997 articles. The positive manifold of correlations suggests the presence of a common psychological construct underlying different commitment forms, with the exception of calculative, continuance, and union commitment. Most of the 94 meta-analyzed correlations were small, suggesting that concept redundancy is not a major concern. Meta-analyses of the correlations of 24 commitment constructs with 4 outcome variables suggest that different commitment forms have similar patterns of correlations with outcome variables.     

Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests

Previous studies have shown that source identification (ID) tests reduce, and in some cases eliminate, eyewitness suggestibility errors. The present study showed that the suggestibility errors participants committed on a source ID test were further reduced when they were given the explicit postwarning that the experimenter was trying to trick them. These postwarnings reduced suggestibility to the same extent as prewarnings, and they did so for both once and repeatedly suggested items. In addition, the benefits of the pre- and postwarnings persisted when participants were retested 1 week later, but only if the suggestions had been repeated. For once-suggested items, the warning had the unintended effect of improving old/new recognition of the suggested information at retest, an effect that offset the improvements in source discrimination accuracy conferred by the warning. The advantages of using source ID tests for investigating group differences in eyewitness suggestibility are discussed.     

Interrogative suggestibility,delayed memory and self-concept

This study investigates the relationship between interrogative suggestibility as measured by the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS) and variables related to memory recall and self-esteem. There were 30 Ss, tested twice 1 week apart. After completing the GSS they were required to fill in a number of Semantic Differential scales relating to the concepts: Myself as I am generally, Myself during the experiment and The experimenter. Ss were generally more suggestible during the second interview when their memory about the context of the interrogation context had deteriorated. The exception was that negative feedback appeared to have most effect on suggestibility and self-esteem the first time it was applied. Self-esteem related to ‘competence’ and ‘potency’ correlated significantly with suggestibility, especially during the first interrogative session. Perceptions of the experimenter were generally not found to be significantly related to suggestibility.     

Memory for memory

Participants read short passages and 1 day later they answered questions via telephone about the passages (text facts) and about the experimental session (event facts). They were telephoned again 6 weeks later and answered the same questions about text and event facts. They also answered new questions about whether they remembered the answers they had given in the initial telephone interview (recall for prior memory performance). Although participants accurately remembered the majority of past memory successes, they were poor at remembering past memory failures. After being provided with the correct answer and tested again, the participants' performance improved somewhat, especially for memory failures. This suggests that some errors in recalling past forgetting might have been due to correctly remembering the answer previously given, but failing to realize that it had been wrong. These findings have implications for a variety of situations in which people are queried about past memory performance.