Fallacies in memory for conversations: Reflections on Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and the Like

Abstract

This study examines conditions that relate to fallacies in memory for conversations. This research tests a cognitive interpretation for why a conversation might be vividly memorable to one eyewitness but not to another. Specifically, a test of gist and verbatim memory for sexual versus non sexual material is presented. In addition, the relative memorability of sexual versus non sexual material is tested as a function of the consistency of the context in which it is presented. In two experiments participants heard a recorded conversation between a man and a woman that included four sexual and four non sexual target sentences. The conversation was framed as having been recorded in either a singles bar (the consistent context) or an office setting (the inconsistent context). Sexual items were recalled and recognized better than non sexual items, on both gist and verbatim memory tasks, and the difference in gist (but not verbatim) memory between sexual and non sexual items was greater in the inconsistent than in the consistent context. The discussion considers how this pattern of results might illuminate slippages in memory that may have occurred during the Clarence ThomassAnita Hill hearing (U.S. Supreme Court appointment review; October 1991) as well as memory slippages more generally.Slippages in memory for conversations are not unusual. In recent years there have been several compelling incidents that reveal apparent memory inconsistencies between people who have participated in the same events-John Dean's memory during the Watergate Hearings; Ollie North's memory during the Iran-Contra Hearings; and, more recently, the memory of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill during Senate Confirmation Hearings of now US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. These, as well as numerous anecdotal examples from our everyday lives, raise questions regarding how observers to the same event can remember it so differently. Although there is a substantial literature on eyewitness memory that identifies factors affecting memory for real-world visual information-settings, faces, and sequences of events-there is little research on fallacies in memory for conversations. This is the focus of this study.In general exact memory for wording is surprisingly poor. In a now classic study,

Enhancing Adults' and Children’s Earwitness Memory: Examining Three Types of Interviews

“…In line with research on everyday conversations (e.g., Miller, deWinstanley, & Carey, 1996), research on memory for criminal conversations using free recall as a memory test has shown that witnesses' statements contain mostly gist memory and that verbatim memory is very poor (Campos & Alonso-Quecuty, 2006;Neisser, 1981;Pezdek & Prull, 1993).…”

“…It has been found that what is said may affect how well it is remembered, and conversations with criminal content often contain attention-attracting details not present in other types of conversations, like accounts of brutal violence, threats, etc. In a study in which adult participants heard a recorded conversation between a man and a women, it was found that sexual content was better recalled than neutral content (Pezdek & Prull, 1993). After a 5-week delay, the meaning of the sexual utterances was better recognized than neutral utterances.…”

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

“…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). Neisser (1981) carried out a study of remembering in a natural context in order to examine the accuracy of John Dean's recall for conversations in the Watergate hearings.…”

Remembering a criminal conversation: Beyond eyewitness testimony

“…In previous studies of memory for conversations, the participants witness the conversational event either in an audiovisual modality, through a videotape as a general rule (Bates, Masling & Kintsch, 1978;MacWhinney, Keenan & Reinke, 1982), or in an auditory-only modality through an audiotape (Hjelmquist, 1989;Jarvella & Collas, 1974;Pezdek & Prull, 1993). Surprisingly, little research on free recall for conversations deals with both the auditory-only and the audiovisual modalities in the same design.…”

“…In these cases the central point is not who did it, but witnesses' memory of what was said (i.e., verbal content). In the legal context, witness statements about criminal conversations are essential because they are frequently the only available evidence (Pezdek & Prull, 1993).…”