Shared Realities: Social Influence and Stimulus Memory

Betz, Andrew L.; Skowronski, John J.; Ostrom, Thomas M.

doi:10.1521/soco.1996.14.2.113

Cited by 70 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They argued that such metacognitive assessments of others' knowledge is important for interpersonal communication, social influence (e.g., accurately predicting what lines of argument others may find persuasive), giving social support (understanding the other person's needs), and deciding which members of a group are the most valuable source of information. The research reported here extends the findings of Betz et al (1996), Schneider and Watkins (1996), and Roediger et al (in press), by exploring the impact of social influence on metamemory processes.…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

“…In short, Betz et al (1996) showed that the subjects' responses on the story cued-recall test were significantly influenced by social pressure, as compared with a control condition in which no bogus second hand information had been received. Furthermore, the subjects were more likely to change their responses when their own original memory was poor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Despite over a hundred experiments using his classical paradigm to study social influence on behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and judgments, relatively little research has been directed at exploring how similar social pressure might influence memory. In a notable exception, Betz, Skowronski, and Ostrom (1996) demonstrated how social pressure can influence memory reports, using an Aschlike conformity paradigm. In their studies, subjects first read a story and then completed a recognition memory test of the story facts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A modified Asch (1951) conformity paradigm was used to study the impact of social influence on reality-monitoring decisions about new items. Subjects studied pictures of some objects and imagined others. In a later test phase, they judged whether items had been perceived in the study phase, had been imagined, or were new. Critically, for some items, the subjects were informed of a confederate's response before rendering a judgment. Although the confederate was always correct when they responded to old items, for new items, the confederate responded perceived, imagined, or new, or did not respond (baseline). In two experiments, we show that memory for new items was influenced by an erroneous response of the confederate. Social conformity was reduced by undermining the credibility of the confederate (Experiments 1A and 1B), and the confederate's influence was evident even after there was only a 20-min delay between study and test (Experiment 2), when the subjects were 87% accurate on new baseline items. These experiments reveal the power of social influence on realitymonitoring accuracy and confidence.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study of cue influences during memory without social interaction is actually rare (but see Betz, Skowronski, & Ostrom, 1996;Meade & Roediger, 2002). Additionally, even when social interaction is absent during final recognition testing, social influence is often introduced earlier in the paradigm.…”

Section: The Limitations Of Establishing Source Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs and benefits of memory conformity

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the influence of external recommendations on memory attributions. In two experiments, participants were led to believe that they were viewing the responses of two prior students to the same memoranda they were currently judging. However, they were not informed of the reliability of these fictive sources of cues or provided with performance feedback as testing proceeded. Experiment 1 demonstrated improvement in the presence of reliable source cues (75% valid), as compared to uncued recognition, whereas performance was unaltered in the presence of random cues provided by an unreliable source (50% valid). Critically, participants did not ignore the unreliable source, but instead appeared to restrict cue use from both sources to low-confidence trials on which internal evidence was highly unreliable. Experiment 2 demonstrated that participants continued to treat an unreliable source as potentially informative even when it was predominantly incorrect (25% valid), highlighting severe limitations in the ability to adequately discount unreliable or deceptive sources of memory cues. Thus, under anonymous source conditions, observers appear to use a low-confidence outsourcing strategy, wherein they restrict reliance on external cues to situations of low confidence.

show abstract

“…Many of those have focused on the effects of social influences on memory. Social influences have been found to affect subjects' ability to recall word lists (Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997;Weldon & Bellinger, 1997) and to recall stories (Betz, Skowronski, & Ostrom, 1996). In addition, misinformation introduced by others has been found to have a profound effect on what one remembers (Basden, Reysen, & Basden, 2002;Loftus, 1979;Roediger, Meade, & Bergman, 2001;Wright, Self, & Justice, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of social pressure on group recall

Reysen

2003

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared Realities: Social Influence and Stimulus Memory

Cited by 70 publications

References 19 publications

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions

Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions

The costs and benefits of memory conformity

The effects of social pressure on group recall

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About