Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory.

Abstract

Although the suggestibility of eyewitness memory is well documented, previous studies have not clearly established the extent to which misled Ss might come to believe they actually remember seeing the suggested details they report. To assess whether Ss confuse misleading suggestions for their "real memories" of a witnessed event, Ss were asked specific questions about their memory for the source of suggested items. The results of 5 experiments showed that misled Ss do sometimes come to believe they remember seeing items that were merely suggested to them, a phenomenon we refer to as the source misattribution effect. Nevertheless, the results also showed that the magnitude of this effect varies and that source misattributions are not an inevitable consequence of exposure to suggestions.

Memory Distortion: Can Accurate Memory be Preserved?

“…In Zaragoza and Lane's (1994) study, which was unsuccessful, the warning used terminology that indicated to the participants that they would definitely be exposed to material that contained misleading information. In our study, we used terminology that indicated to the participants that they "may" be exposed to material that contained misleading ·information.…”

“…The uncertainty created by the words "may" and "if" might have resulted in the misled participants becoming more susceptible to the inaccurate information. According to Zaragoza and Lane (1994), the act of answering a misleading question leads participants to replay the original event and if the question was misleading, incorporate some of the inaccurate information into a memorial representation. Zaragoza and Lane's participants, knowing that they were to be presented with inaccuracies, may have been more certain about which details were inaccurate than the participants in the present study who may have been uncertain as to whether or not there were misleading questions.…”

“…Unlike previous studies using adults (Greene et aI. , 1982;Zaragoza & Lane, 1994), the inoculation procedure used in the present study included a combination of instruction about memory distortion, a warn ing that the participants may be misled, and an attempt to reduce the power differential between the experimenter and the participant (to reduce demand characteristics). Specifically, after viewing a 12-min defensive driving v ideotape, participants were given either a written inoculation , a videotaped inoculation, a combined written/videotaped inoculation, or no inoculation.…”

“…The logic behind this strategy is that if participants are warned that memory can be easily distorted they may be more vigilant and resistant to suggestion (O'Sullivan & Howe, 1995). However, merely warning participants they would be exposed to misleading information was only marginally successful in one case (Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982) and unsuccessful in another (Zaragoza & Lane, 1994). One successful attempt was repo rted by Saywitz and Moan-Hardie (1994) using children.…”

“…Garry and Loftus (1994) described four categories of studies that represent memory distortion research: (a) the influence of leading questions on eyewitness testimony (e.g., Loftus & Palmer, 1974), (b) the suggestion of the presence of items that were not present during some event (e.g., Loftus, 1975), (c) the manipulation of details about an object present in some event (e.g., Loftus, 1979), and (d) the creation of an enti rely false or fictitious memory (see Loftus, 1997aLoftus, , or 1997b, for a review). An additional category, in which researchers have looked for the source of memory distortion, is termed source misattribution (e.g., Zaragoza & Lane, 1994).…”