Perceptions of Credibility for a Memory Report of a Single Versus Repeated Event

Abstract

When a person experiences an event that has multiple similar instances (i.e., a repeated event), memories for details that change across instances can be challenging to recall (e.g., Fivush, 1984). We expected that third parties would perceive memory reports of instances of repeated events as less credible than unique (i.e., single) events.Undergraduates participated in a single or repeated event, during which critical details were presented. Participants were asked to recall the session 2-days later, and memory reports were video recorded. New participants then viewed one video and evaluated the credibility of the speaker's memory report. Despite the reports being equally accurate, repeated-event reports were seen as less credible than single-event reports. Although credibility research in the context of repeated events has focused exclusively on child populations, a range of applications exists for adults (e.g., criminal and industrial eyewitnesses, asylum-seekers); we discussed our findings in these areas.

Liars are perceived as more credible than truth‐tellers who recall a repeated event

“…To date, two experiments have directly investigated the perceptions of individuals recalling a repeated event. These experiments used a two‐phase methodology wherein adult evaluators assessed the credibility of child (Connolly, Price, Lavoie, & Gordon, 2008) and adult speakers (Weinsheimer, Coburn, MacLean, & Connolly, 2017). In the first phase of these experiments, phase 1 participants experienced a single event (a play session and tasting session respectively) or a repeated event in which most details varied predictably across episodes.…”

“…In both studies evaluators received no contextual information indicating that the speaker may be lying. Weinsheimer et al (2017) informed participants that the speaker was recalling an event which they had previously experienced. Connolly et al (2008) also told evaluators that the speaker was recalling a past event, and that some speakers were highly accurate in recall whilst the accuracy of others was low.…”

“…Perceived confidence, for example, is typically related to credibility when perceived accuracy is salient, rather than veracity (Brewer & Burke, 2002; Wells, Lindsay, & Ferguson, 1979). Indeed, Weinsheimer et al (2017) found that perceived confidence of the speaker fully mediated the relationship between event frequency and credibility, and Connolly et al (2008) found that repeated‐event speakers were perceived as less confident than single‐event speakers. It is thus possible that different results may arise when the honesty of a speaker is salient, rather than veracity as perceived confidence may not mediate the relationship between speaker‐type and credibility when veracity is salient.…”

“…Additionally, these two‐phase studies did not include a condition in which participants watched an interview of a speaker who was lying (Connolly et al, 2008; Weinsheimer et al, 2017). The absence of a condition in which participants rated the perceived credibility of a speaker who was lying about an event is problematic because the perceived credibility of a repeated‐event speaker may contrast to the perceived credibility of a speaker who is lying about the event.…”

Breaking script: Deviations and postevent information in adult memory for a repeated event

“…Also, this research focused on cued recall responses to direct questions; however, this is not best practice interviewing. Research employing a best practice questioning methodology showed that adult witnesses who experienced repeated events were less accurate than single‐event witnesses (Theunissen et al, ) and may appear less reliable (Weinsheimer, Coburn, Chong, MacLean, & Connolly, ). Pursuing research that reveals how features like deviations or PEI influence witness reporting in a best practice interview scenario is important.…”