Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility.

Abstract

The authors report 5 experiments investigating how exposure to misleading postevent information affects people's ability to remember details from a witnessed event. In each experiment the authors tested memory using the modified opposition test, which was designed to isolate retrieval-blocking effects. The findings indicate that retrieval blocking occurs regardless of whether the misleading information is presented before or after the witnessed event. In addition, when people are warned immediately about the presence of misleading information, they can counteract retrieval-blocking effects but only if the misinformation is relatively low in accessibility. The authors discuss the findings in terms of the retrieval-blocking hypothesis and a hypothetical suppression mechanism that can counteract retrieval-blocking effects in some circumstances.

Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation

“…This seems rather unlikely, however, given Greene et al's findings from the Loftus paradigm that increasing the time between a warning (given immediately after the encoding of an event) and misleading suggestions did not reduce the subsequent effects of misinformation on a recognition test, and that warned participants did not remember valid information any better than unwarned participants did, even if there was no misinformation. Also, Eakin et al (2003) found immediate postmisinformation warnings that explicitly identified the piece of misinformation (thus, allowing selective rehearsal of the corresponding correct piece of information) as effective as warnings that did not specify the misleading information.…”

“…Sixth, Eakin et al (2003) have suggested that warnings may lead to active suppression of the misinformation's activation. As mentioned before, representations of valid and invalid information may coexist in memory and compete for activation (Ayers & Reder, 1998;H.…”

“…Second, the salience of misinformation at the time of retrieval could lead to output inhibition; that is, retrieval of misinformation might make retrieval of alternatives less likely (Eakin et al, 2003). In the case of retracted misinformation with no alternative provided, one could argue that salient misinformation could inhibit the spontaneous generation of alternative accounts at retrieval, leading to higher reliance on misinformation.…”

“…Various processes have been put forward by which warnings exert their protective effect, and these could prove informative for the present study. 5 First, warnings could reduce potential demand characteristics (Eakin, Schreiber, & Sergent-Marshall, 2003;McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985). Participants might have some naive theory about what is expected of them-for instance, that they should not believe unsubstantiated corrections-and this could lead to continued reliance on misinformation.…”

Testing promotes eyewitness accuracy with a warning: Implications for retrieval enhanced suggestibility

“…The effects of warning on eyewitness suggestibility have been investigated extensively. For example, Echterhoff, Hirst, and Hussy (2005; see also Chambers & Zaragoza, 2001b;Christiaansen & Ochalek, 1983;Eakin, Schreiber, & Sergent-Marshall, 2003;Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982) found that warning subjects after misinformation exposure reduced the misinformation effect. In the context of RES, warning should encourage subjects to engage in more effortful recollection during retrieval (Starns, Lane, Alonzo, & Roussel, 2007), thereby reducing fluency-based responding.…”