"I saw it with my own ears": the effects of peer conversations on preschoolers' reports of nonexperienced events

The study was designed to explore the effects of naturally occurring peer interactions and repeated suggestive interviews on preschoolers' (N=96, Meanage=54 months) memories for a personally experienced event, namely a staged archaeological dig. During the dig, one third of the children witnessed two "target" activities. A second third of the children were the classmates of those in the first group, but did not witness the target activities. The remaining children were not the classmates of those who witnessed the target activities, nor did they witness the target activities themselves, and thus served to provide a baseline against which to assess the effects of peer contact. Following the dig, the children were interviewed in either a neutral or suggestive manner on three occasions. Results from a fourth interview by a new examiner revealed that the combination of suggestive interviews and peer exposure led to claims of witnessing the target activities by the classmate group that were comparable to the children who actually did witness these activities. Further, assent rates to misleading questions employing peer pressure and false claims of actually seeing versus merely hearing about the target activities were elevated following opportunities to discuss these activities with peers.     

Rumor mongering and remembering: how rumors originating in children's inferences can affect memory

This study examined how rumors originating in 3- to 6-year-olds' causal inferences can affect their own and their peers' memories for a personally experienced event. This was accomplished by exposing some members of classrooms to contextual clues that were designed to induce inferences about the causes of two unresolved components of the event. After a 1-week delay, a substantial number of children who were exposed to the clues misremembered their inferences as actual experiences. Causal inferential memory errors were most pronounced among 5- and 6-year-olds. Also, many of the children whose classmates were exposed to the clues mistakenly incorporated their classmates' causal inferences into their own accounts, with 3- and 4-year-olds being most likely to make this error.     

Faces differing in attractiveness elicit corresponding affective responses

We examined whether faces differing in attractiveness elicit positive and negative affect in 7- to 10-year-old children (N=66) and adults (N=73). Facial electromyography measured affective response. Less attractive faces evoked significantly more levator labii superioris responses in adults and children. Attractiveness was negatively correlated with corrugator supercilii activity in adults, but not significantly in children. These results suggest that less attractive faces evoke greater disgust and negative affect than more attractive faces. Perceivers' affective reactions to attractive faces may play an important role in attractiveness preferences and attractiveness stereotypes.     

Natural conversations as a source of false memories in children: Implications for the testimony of young witnesses

Research on factors that can affect the accuracy of children’s autobiographical remembering has important implications for understanding the abilities of young witnesses to provide legal testimony. In this article, we review our own recent research on one factor that has much potential to induce errors in children’s event recall, namely natural memory sharing conversations with peers and parents. Our studies provide compelling evidence that not only can the content of conversations about the past intrude into later memory but that such exchanges can prompt the generation of entirely false narratives that are more detailed than true accounts of experienced events. Further, our work show that deeper and more creative participation in memory sharing dialogues can boost the damaging effects of conversationally conveyed misinformation. Implications of this collection of findings for children’s testimony are discussed.