False claims about false memory research

Pezdek and Lam [Pezdek, K. & Lam, S. (2007). What research paradigms have cognitive psychologists used to study "False memory," and what are the implications of these choices? Consciousness and Cognition] claim that the majority of research into false memories has been misguided. Specifically, they charge that false memory scientists have been (1) misusing the term "false memory," (2) relying on the wrong methodologies to study false memories, and (3) misapplying false memory research to real world situations. We review each of these claims and highlight the problems with them. We conclude that several types of false memory research have advanced our knowledge of autobiographical and recovered memories, and that future research will continue to make significant contributions to how we understand memory and memory errors.     

Improving the identification accuracy of senior witnesses: do prelineup questions and sequential testing help?

Eyewitness research has identified sequential lineup testing as a way of reducing false lineup choices while maintaining accurate identifications. The authors examined the usefulness of this procedure for reducing false choices in older adults. Young and senior witnesses viewed a crime video and were later presented with target present orabsent lineups in a simultaneous or sequential format. In addition, some participants received prelineup questions about their memory for a perpetrator's face and about their confidence in their ability to identify the culprit or to correctly reject the lineup. The sequential lineup reduced false choosing rates among young and older adults in target-absent conditions. In target-present conditions, sequential testing significantly reduced the correct identification rate in both age groups.     

Pre-event stereotypes and misinformation effects in young children

This study examined the effects of pre-event stereotypes on 5-year-old children's memories for the visit of an adult male to their school. Children were read three stories in which this man was described in positive, negative, or neutral terms. Following the visit, children were read post-event narratives which contained positive and negative misinformation that was consistent and inconsistent with the pre-event stereotype. Children were then given a recognition test under inclusion and exclusion instructions. Negative misinformation was correctly rejected more often than positive misinformation. Children given a positive pre-event stereotype were more likely to accept positive misinformation than those in the other stereotype conditions. Process dissociation analyses revealed that recollection for negative misinformation was larger than for positive misinformation; the opposite was the case for familiarity.     

Eyewitness recognition errors: the effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults

Eyewitness memory is vulnerable to information encountered prior to a lineup. Young (18-30 years) and older (60-80 years) witnesses viewed a crime video. Some witnesses were then exposed to mugshots of innocent suspects that included a critical foil. After a 48-h delay, all the witnesses took part in a target-absent lineup that included the critical foil and five new foils. Witnesses who picked one of the mugshots as the likely perpetrator showed inflated rates of choosing the critical foil from the lineup. Context reinstatement instructions did not reduce choices of innocent foils following mugshot exposure. Despite age-related increases in false choosing, age did not qualify other effects. The results are discussed in terms of commitment, source memory, and gist-based processing.     

End of 2016: Can We Save Research from Predators in 2017?

At the beginning of every year, we expect to see worthwhile improvements on the past. The end of 2016 showcased many important issues in the scientific world, ranging from criticisms of research misconduct and fraud to the introduction of new scientometrics. Despite the scientific community’s continuing efforts, predatory journals and publishers are still on the rise, and the Beall’s list calls attention to the need to take a firm action across the board. This short opinion piece highlights research conducted by the scholarly community on research publication predators during 2016, and offers suggestions as to how to bring about future improvements.