Providing misleading and reinstatement information a year after it happened: Effects on long‐term memory

Abstract

The question addressed here is whether misleading suggestions made to children a year after target events had occurred will alter long-term recall. One group (3-13 years old when injured and treated in a hospital Emergency Room) were given both misleading and accurate reinstating information a year later, and recall of target events assessed both 1 week and another year later (i.e., 2 years post-injury). A control group had recall assessed both 1 and 2 years post-injury. Misleading had little effect on children's recall 1 week later, although a few misled details were reported. However, a year later virtually none of the misleading information was incorporated into long-term recall. Rather, children were more, not less, accurate when recalling details about which they had been misled. Results were attributed to target events having been highly memorable and well rehearsed via previous recalls, and detection of discrepancies between memory and misleading information focusing attention on targeted details.

The role of time delay in memory conformity

“…Our results are opposite to those obtained in studies on the misinformation effect (Loftus et al, 1978;Peterson et al, 2004). This may be due to the importance of the discussion.…”

“…Two experiments investigating the misinformation effect, in which misleading information was provided in a different way than during an interaction between people, dealt with this problem (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978;Peterson, Parsons, & Dean, 2004). The results of these studies suggested that a longer time delay between introducing misinformation and memory test resulted in a slight decrease in the number of answers consistent with the misleading information.…”

The dark side of testing memory: Repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility.

“…This prediction can be drawn because of two reasons. First, repeated retrieval is a powerful memory enhancer, and eyewitnesses are more likely to resist misinformation when the original memory is stronger (Loftus, 1979;Marche, 1999;Peterson, Parsons, & Dean, 2004); therefore, recalling details of an event multiple times may lead to a reduction in later suggestibility. Second, one component of the cognitive interview involves repeated retrieval.…”

Rola odroczenia czasowego w konformizmie pamięciowym

“…Jest to efekt odwrotny do tego, jaki uzyskano w badaniach nad dezinformacją, której wpływ z czasem słabnął (Loftus i in., 1978;Peterson i in., 2004). Byü moĪe wynika to ze znaczenia samej rozmowy.…”

“…Analizowano go jednak w eksperymentach nad efektem dezinformacji, w których niezgodną ze zdarzeniem informacjĊ podaje siĊ w inny sposób niĪ podczas rozmowy. Wyniki tych badaĔ sugerują, Īe wraz z wydłuĪeniem czasu miĊdzy podaniem dezinformacji a testem pamiĊci, osoby badane nieco rzadziej udzielają odpowiedzi zgodnych z dezinformacją (Loftus, Miller i Burns, 1978;Peterson, Parsons i Dean, 2004). Byü moĪe upływający czas miĊdzy rozmową o zdarzeniu a póĨniejszym jego przypominaniem takĪe bĊdzie powodował zmniejszenie włączania do relacji pamiĊciowych błĊdnych informacji uzyskanych w dyskusji.…”