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

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. 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...

Reducing the Misinformation Effect Through Initial Testing: Take Two Tests and Recall Me in the Morning?

“…The PET patterns we obtained are the opposite of the frequently reported RES pattern (Chan et al, 2009; 2012; Chan & Langley, 2011; Chan & LaPaglia, 2011; LaPaglia & Chan, 2013; Thomas et al, 2010; Wilford et al, 2014). An important area for future research will be to determine when initial testing is likely to have protective (PET) versus harmful (RES) effects on memory.…”

“…However, LaPaglia and Chan (2013) demonstrated that initial testing can produce a PET pattern in this paradigm if misinformation is presented via misleading questions rather than a narrative. Whether initial testing yields a RES pattern or PET pattern may thus be contingent, in part, on how the initial test shapes the learning of subsequent misinformation (Gordon, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2015).…”

The Impact of Testing on the Formation of Children's and Adults' False Memories

“…Likewise, Pansky and Tenenboim used such an approach whereas we embedded the misinformation into a narrative. This approach has been found to favor test‐enhanced suggestibility (LaPaglia & Chan, 2013), a pattern that was supported by our finding. Another possible reason for the inconsistencies with Pansky and Tenenboim is the diverging operationalization of the types of processing.…”

“…This inconsistency may be because of differences in how misinformation was introduced. An inoculation effect of testing against misinformation was more frequently found when misinformation was introduced via questions (LaPaglia & Chan, 2013). Likewise, Pansky and Tenenboim used such an approach whereas we embedded the misinformation into a narrative.…”

“…These include delay between the event and testing (Pansky, 2012) or the introduction of misinformation (Chan & LaPaglia, 2011), recall type (cued recall vs. free recall; Wang et al, 2014), form of misinformation (questions vs. narratives; LaPaglia & Chan, 2013), and contextual embedding of misinformation (LaPaglia, 2013). One factor that has rarely been examined is how information (i.e., the type of processing) is retrieved in the testing phase (but see Pansky & Tenenboim, 2011).…”