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.     

Doing More Harm Than Good: When Is Impression Management Likely to Evoke a Negative Response?

Impression management tactics do not always successfully influence observers, and may in fact create undesirable impressions. Hypotheses are derived concerning the conditions under which observers may respond more or less positively to impression management tactics. Qualitative data from an experiment manipulating two impression management tactics—self-handicapping and causal accounts—in conjunction with successful or failed performance outcomes were content-analyzed for subjects' general impressions of an actor. In turn, these ratings were subjected to an ANOVA. Results suggest that impression management tactics are differentially effective and under certain conditions can actually create negative images. The consistency of impression management tactics, performance outcomes, and observers' expectations form the basis for observers' general impressions of impression managers.     

Within-session Changes In Responding During Concurrent Variable-interval Schedules

Five rats and 4 pigeons responded for food delivered by several concurrent variable-interval schedules. The sum of the rates of reinforcement programmed for the two components varied from 15 to 480 reinforcers per hour in different conditions. Rates of responding usually changed within the experimental session in a similar manner for the two components of each concurrent schedule. The within-session changes were similar to previously reported changes during simple schedules that provided rates of reinforcement equal to the sum of all reinforcers obtained from the concurrent schedules. The number of changeovers also changed within sessions in a manner similar to the changes in instrumental responding. These results suggest that changeovers are governed by the same variables that govern instrumental responding. They also suggest that the within-session change in responding during each component of a concurrent schedule is determined by approximately the sum of the reinforcers obtained from both components when both components provide the same type of reinforcer.     

ITEM GENERATION PROCEDURES AND BACKGROUND DATA SCALES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCT AND CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY

Background data measures are one of the best predictors of job performance. Nonetheless, questions have been raised about their content and construct validity. The present effort describes a set of procedures for developing construct and content valid background data items. Data gathered in seven field studies and six laboratory studies are presented bearing on the reliability and validity of the measures constructed using these item generation procedures. Findings in these studies indicate that construct-based item generation procedures yield reliable scales evidencing both content and construct validity. Furthermore, these scales are capable of predicting performance in a variety of settings. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for the development and validation of background data measures are discussed.