Actor-Observer Differences in Conversational Memory

Stafford, Laura; Waldron, Vincent R.; Infield, Linda L.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00200.x

Cited by 47 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stafford, Waldron, and Infield (1989) compared participantsÕ and observersÕ recall of the conversation and found no differences in recall quantity, but did find differences between participantsÕ and observersÕ memories of the content of the conversation.…”

Section: The Effect Of Conversational Perspective On Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 95%

Judgments of communicative intent in conversation

Albright

Cohen

Malloy

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Effect Of Conversational Perspective On Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 95%

Judgments of communicative intent in conversation

Albright

Cohen

Malloy

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hjelmquist & Gidlund, 1985;Miller, deWinstanley, & Carey, 1996;Ross & Sicoly, 1979;Stafford, Burggraf, & Sharkey, 1987;Stafford & Daly, 1984;Stafford, Waldron, & Infield, 1989). Concerning the forensic context, surprisingly, the study of the accuracy and completeness of witnesses' memory for criminal conversations has been attempted occasionally only (Neisser, 1981;Pezdek & Prull, 1993).…”

Section: Memory For Conversation and The Legal Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language crimes and the cognitive interview: testing its efficacy in retrieving a conversational event

Campos

Alonso-Quecuty

2008

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequently, the only available evidence in 'language crimes' (e.g. verbal sexual harassment) is witness statements about criminal conversations. However, previous research has showed that recall for sentences in conversation is very poor. The main aim of this research was to find out how to solve this problem. The cognitive interview (CI) is an interview technique which has shown to be more effective in recalling criminal episodes than a comparison interview. In addition, our experience in research on the CI had been highly satisfactory; therefore, we decided to use the CI as a tool in the research on memory for conversation, so far ignored. Thus, this study tested, for the first time, whether the CI would be also successful in obtaining complete and accurate accounts for a criminal conversation. Different forms of correct recall (verbatim/gist) of the verbal information as well as different types of errors (distortions/fabrications) were also examined. It was predicted that the CI would elicit more correct information without an increase in errors than a comparison interview (i.e. a free-recall protocol). Results confirmed these hypotheses. Interpretations of the overall findings are offered within the context of theoretical principles concerning the retrieval of information from memory.

show abstract

“…Research on conversational memory has typically focused on memories for encounters with naïve strangers (Benoit, Benoit, & Wilkie, 1995;Stafford & Daly, 1984;Stafford et al, 1987Stafford et al, , 1989 or unknown confederates (Miller, 2001;Miller & deWinstanley, 2002). However, scholars suggest that an existing relationship with a conversational partner may affect memory processes, and turn, impact the content of remembered conversations (Richards et al, 2003;Scott, Fuhrman, & Wyer, 1991).…”

Section: The Influence Of Partner Knowledgementioning

confidence: 95%

“I Said What?” Partner Familiarity, Resistance, and the Accuracy of Conversational Recall

Samp¹,

Humphreys

2007

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the influence of two structural parameters on the content and valence of conversational recall. 144 females had two conversations defined by relationship type (close friend or stranger) and partner resistance (resistance or none). Conversational recall statements were coded for accuracy of content (self, partner, or neutral) and valence (positive, negative, or neutral). Overall, respondents were less accurate in recalling the content of stranger conversations than friend exchanges, and when partners were agreeable compared to resistant. However, those who experienced little partner resistance more accurately recalled positively valenced information than respondents who encountered resistance. When partners resisted, friend interactions were recalled less accurately in terms of positivity, but more accurately for negative information, compared to the recall of stranger conversations.

show abstract

Actor-Observer Differences in Conversational Memory

Cited by 47 publications

References 52 publications

Judgments of communicative intent in conversation

Judgments of communicative intent in conversation

Language crimes and the cognitive interview: testing its efficacy in retrieving a conversational event

“I Said What?” Partner Familiarity, Resistance, and the Accuracy of Conversational Recall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About