Inoculating against eyewitness suggestibility via interpolated verbatim vs. gist testing

Abstract

In real-life situations, eyewitnesses often have control over the level of generality in which they choose to report event information. In the present study, we adopted an early-intervention approach to investigate to what extent eyewitness memory may be inoculated against suggestibility, following two different levels of interpolated reporting: verbatim and gist. After viewing a target event, participants responded to interpolated questions that required reporting of target details at either the verbatim or the gist level. After 48 hr, both groups of participants were misled about half of the target details and were finally tested for verbatim memory of all the details. The findings were consistent with our predictions: Whereas verbatim testing was successful in completely inoculating against suggestibility, gist testing did not reduce it whatsoever. These findings are particularly interesting in light of the comparable testing effects found for these two modes of interpolated testing.

The Impact of Testing on the Formation of Children's and Adults' False Memories

“…Drawing from both practical and theoretical considerations, we extended Pansky and Tenenboim's (2011) approach in the current experiment. More specifically, we examined the effect of meaning versus item‐specific testing on the susceptibility to misinformation from a developmental angle.…”

“…Researchers argue that taking a test strengthens the memory trace for a specific event, which in turn reduces the impact of forgetting and external misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). In support of the protective value of testing, studies have frequently found an inoculation effect against misinformation (e.g., Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011; Wang, Paterson, & Kemp, 2014). In one of these studies, participants filled out the SAI immediately after seeing a video of a robbery (Gabbert, Hope, Fisher, & Jamieson, 2012, Experiment 1).…”

“…These include delay between the event and testing (Pansky, 2012) or the introduction of misinformation (Chan & LaPaglia, 2011), recall type (cued recall vs. free recall; Wang et al, 2014), form of misinformation (questions vs. narratives; LaPaglia & Chan, 2013), and contextual embedding of misinformation (LaPaglia, 2013). One factor that has rarely been examined is how information (i.e., the type of processing) is retrieved in the testing phase (but see Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011). …”

“…Pansky and Tenenboim (2011) reasoned that only immediate testing on the item‐specific (verbatim) and not on the relational or meaning (gist) level protects against misinformation while simultaneously heightening correct recall. In their study, adult participants first viewed a slide show depicting a normal day of a student.…”

“…The one‐word response was supposed to reflect meaning processing and the two‐word response item‐specific processing. 2Note that Pansky and Tenenboim (2011) used the terms verbatim and gist level to differentiate between their groups. To be consistent throughout the document, we refer to item‐specific and meaning level, respectively.…”