New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects.

Saunders, Jo; Macleod, M.D.

doi:10.1037/1076-898x.8.2.127

Cited by 83 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the permanent abolition of a memory trace, inhibition is often thought to be reversible, so that a memory may regain some portion of its prior accessibility as retrieval contexts demand. This may explain why others have found that the effects of RIF diminish after 24-h delays (MacLeod & Macrae, 2001;Saunders & MacLeod, 2002).…”

Section: Inhibition In Selective Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 82%

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Hulbert

Anderson

2008

Human Learning - Biology, Brain, and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Inhibition In Selective Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 82%

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Hulbert

Anderson

2008

Human Learning - Biology, Brain, and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When participants were asked about the weapon in the initial memory test, it may have inadvertently drawn their attention to this relevant misleading detail in the narrative, thereby enhancing encoding of this misinformation and increasing misinformation recall on the final test. Gordon and Thomas' (2013) recent study lent support to this hypothesis when they found that participants who were initially tested spent more time reading sentences that included misinformation.Although the RES effect shows that testing can be detrimental to the accuracy of eyewitness memory, several studies have reported the contrary, such that initial testing can protect eyewitnesses from misleading suggestions (e.g., Gabbert, Hope, Fisher, & Jamieson, 2012;LaPaglia & Chan, 2012;Memon, Zaragoza, Clifford, & Kidd, 2010;Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011;Saunders & MacLeod, 2002). Numerous methodological differences between these sets of studies likely contribute to the disparity in the effects of testing on suggestibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…For example, compared to studies demonstrating RES, the studies that showed a testing effect In an experiment conducted by Saunders and MacLeod (2002), participants read two written narratives describing separate burglaries. After the encoding phase, participants were tested on half of the items from one of the burglaries while all remaining items were not tested.…”

Section: Testing and Suggestibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of recent studies have found that recalling details of an event following its occurrence can increase people's suggestibility to later presented misinformation. However, several other studies have reported the opposite result, whereby earlier retrieval can reduce subsequent eyewitness suggestibility. In the present study, we investigated whether differences in the way misinformation is presented can modulate the effects of testing on suggestibility. Participants watched a video of a robbery and some were questioned about the event immediately afterwards. Later, participants were exposed to misinformation in a narrative (Experiment 1) or in questions (Experiment 2). Consistent with previous studies, we found that testing increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented via a narrative. Remarkably, when misinformation was presented in questions, testing decreased suggestibility. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Iowa State UniversityAuthor Note These data were collected as part of the dissertation of the first author. We thank the following research assistants for their help with data collection: Jennifer Dillon, Kelsi Dodd, and Jennifer Piatak.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica LaPaglia, Department of TESTING AND SUGGESTIBILITY2 Abstract A number of recent studies have found that recalling details of an event following its occurrence can increase people's suggestibility to later presented misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). However, several other studies have reported the opposite result, whereby earlier retrieval can reduce subsequent eyewitness suggestibility (e.g., Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011). In the present study, we investigated whether differences in the way misinformation is presented can modulate the effects of testing on suggestibility. Participants watched a video of a robbery and some were questioned about the event immediately afterwards. Later, participants were exposed to misinformation in a narrative (Experiment 1) or in questions (Experiment 2).Consistent with previous studies, we found that testing increased suggestibility when misinformation was presented via a narrative. Remarkably, when misinformation was presented in questions, testing decreased suggestibility. In a recent New Jersey ruling, there was a reformulation of juror instructions aimed at clarifying how eyewitness testimony should be evaluated (Weiser, 2012). The new instructions educate jurors on findings from decades of research demonstrating the fallibility of eyewitness memory. Indeed, memory for an event or perpetrator can be drastically altered when witnesses are exposed to misleading postevent information (the misinformation effect; for a review see Loftus, 2005). More relevant to the present research is a counterintuitive finding that has been reported in a series of studies. Namely, that recalling the details of an event can increase eyewitness suggestibility to later presented misinformation (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009;Chan & L...

show abstract

“…For instance, in research on retrieval-induced forgetting, some authors have reported full recovery from inhibition after a day or more (Chan, 2009 ;MacLeod & Macrae, 2001 ;Saunders & MacLeod, 2002 ) , concluding that the effect is transient, whereas other authors have reported inhibition after 24 h (Ford, Keating, & Patel, 2004 ;Conroy & Salmon, 2005 ;Conroy & Salmon, 2006 ;Garcia-Bajos, Migueles, & Anderson, 2009 ;Storm et al, 2006 ;Racsmány, Conway, & Demeter, 2010 ;Tandoh & Naka, 2007 ) . Indeed, Garcia-Bajos, Migueles, and Anderson found, using an eyewitness memory video, retrieval-induced forgetting after a week that was signifi cant and undiminished (Garcia-Bajos et al, 2009 ) .…”

Section: Effects Of Retention Interval On the Effect Are Unclearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Anderson

Huddleston

2011

True and False Recovered Memories

144

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, research on forgetting has been dominated by the assumption that forgetting is passive, refl ecting decay, interference, and changes in context. This emphasis arises from the pervasive assumption that forgetting is a negative outcome. Here, we present a functional view of forgetting in which the fate of experience in memory is determined as much by motivational forces that dictate the focus of attention as it is by passive factors. A central tool of motivated forgetting is retrieval suppression, a process whereby people shut down episodic retrieval to control awareness. We review behavioral, neurobiological, and clinical research and show that retrieval suppression leads us to forget suppressed experiences. We discuss key questions necessary to address to develop this model, relationships to other forgetting phenomena, and the implications of this research for understanding recovered memories. This work provides a foundation for understanding how motivational forces infl uence what we remember of life experience.

show abstract

New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects.

Cited by 83 publications

References 45 publications

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

The Role of Inhibition in Learning

Testing Increases Suggestibility for Narrative‐based Misinformation but Reduces Suggestibility for Question‐based Misinformation

Towards a Cognitive and Neurobiological Model of Motivated Forgetting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About