Adult Eyewitness Memory and Compliance: Effects of Post‐event Misinformation on Memory for a Negative Event

Abstract

This study investigated effects of misleading post-event information, delay, and centrality definition on eyewitness memory and suggestibility for a negative event (a vividly filmed murder). Either immediately or 2 weeks after viewing the film, 93 adults read a (misleading or control) narrative about the event and then completed a recognition memory test. Misinformation acceptance was operative, but strong evidence for memory malleability was lacking. Compliance predicted misinformation effects, especially on the delayed test. Although accuracy was generally higher for central than peripheral information, centrality criteria influenced the pattern of results. Self-report of greater distress was associated with better recognition accuracy. The results suggest that use of different centrality definitions may partly explain inconsistencies across studies of memory and suggestibility for central and peripheral information. Moreover, social factors appeared, at least in part, to influence misinformation effects for the highly negative event, especially as memory faded. Implications for eyewitness memory and suggestibility are discussed.

Child Maltreatment, Trauma‐Related Psychopathology, and Eyewitness Memory in Children and Adolescents

“…Even though many memory skills are relatively well developed by 9 years of age (Bjorklund, 2011), in the present study, younger children produced more commission errors to the direct questions than did older children. The age difference might reflect poorer memory or greater compliance in younger than in older individuals (e.g., Cassel, Roebers, & Bjorklund, 1996;Lee, 2004;McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985;Paz-Alonso, Goodman, & Ibabe, 2013), and underscores the problem of asking direct (e.g., yes-no) questions when interviewing children about their memories (Peterson, 2012), although in the present case, the memories only concerned a relatively brief, positive video clip. Second, higher levels of psychopathology, above and beyond maltreatment history, were significantly related to children's memory error for positive information.…”

Cross‐cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports

“…They rated the extent the stimulus (a) represented their native setting and (b) represented a crime scene. Consistent with Paz‐Alonso, Goodman, and Ibabe (), the mid‐rating score was used in deciding whether a stimulus received sufficient rating. The stimuli settings were rated by participants to adequately represent settings in their respective countries (Ghanaian stimuli— M = 3.79, SD = .97; Dutch stimuli— M = 3.33, SD = .62) and reflect plausible crime scenes (Ghanaian stimuli— M = 3.43, SD = 1.28; Dutch stimuli— M = 3.47, SD = .83).…”

From Eyewitness to Academic Contexts: Examining the Effect of Misinformation in First and Second Languages

“…The misinformation paradigm typically involves recognition tests (e.g., Calvillo, Parong, Peralta, Ocampo, & Van Gundy, ; Paz‐Alonso, Goodman, & Ibabe, ). Prior studies (Francis & Gutiérrez, ; Francis & Strobach, ) reported that bilinguals' recognition memory is higher in their second language (L2) than in their first language (L1).…”