Testing promotes eyewitness accuracy with a warning: Implications for retrieval enhanced suggestibility

Thomas, Ayanna K.; Bulevich, John B.; Chan, Jason C. K.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.004

Cited by 59 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do not dwell on the reconsolidation hypothesis in this paper because these experiments were not designed to address this possibility. account ascribes RES to preferential encoding of the misinformation following initial testing (Chan et al, 2009;Thomas, Bulevich, & Chan, 2010). For explication purposes, we refer to this notion as the attention allocation hypothesis (Chan, Wilford, & Hughes, 2012;Thomas et al, 2010).…”

Section: Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Retrieval-enhanced Suggestibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immediately recalling a witnessed event can increase people's susceptibility to later postevent misinformation. But this retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES) effect has been shown only when the initial recall test included specific questions that reappeared on the final test. Moreover, it is unclear whether this phenomenon is affected by the centrality of event details. These limitations make it difficult to generalize RES to criminal investigations, which often begin with free recall prior to more specific queries from legal officials and attorneys. In 3 experiments, we examined the influence of test formats (free recall vs. cued recall) and centrality of event details (central vs. peripheral) on RES. In Experiment 1, both the initial and final tests were cued recall. In Experiment 2, the initial test was free recall and the final test was cued recall. In Experiment 3, both the initial and final tests were free recall. Initial testing increased misinformation reporting on the final test for peripheral details in all experiments, but the effect was significant for central details only after aggregating the data from all 3 experiments. These results show that initial free recall can produce RES, and more broadly, that free recall can potentiate subsequent learning of complex prose materials. Immediately recalling a witnessed event can increase people's susceptibility to later post-

show abstract

Section: Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Retrieval-enhanced Suggestibmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although providing a warning can minimize RES (Thomas et al, 2010), one concern with such an approach is that warnings might be more effective in the laboratory than in the field. Specifically, in laboratory settings, targeted warnings can be delivered because the experimenter is aware of the source of the misinformation (e.g., the experimenter might inform the participant that the postevent narrative might contain misinformation).…”

Section: Can Initial Testing Help Rather Than Hurt Eyewitness Memormentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chan¹,

LaPaglia²

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyewitnesses typically recount their experiences many times before trial. Such repeated retrieval can enhance memory retention of the witnessed event. However, recent studies (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009) have found that initial retrieval can exacerbate eyewitness suggestibility to later misleading information-a finding termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES). Here we examined the influence of multiple retrieval attempts on eyewitness suggestibility to subsequent misinformation. In four experiments, we systematically varied the number of initial tests taken (between zero and six), the delay between initial testing and misinformation exposure (~30 min or 1 week), and whether initial testing was manipulated between-or within-subjects. University undergraduate students were used as participants. Overall, we found that eyewitness suggestibility increased as the number of initial tests increased, but this RES effect was qualified by the delay and by whether initial testing occurred in a within-or between-subjects manner. Specifically, the within-subjects RES effect was smaller than the between-subjects RES effect, possibly because of the influence of retrieval-induced forgetting/facilitation (Chan, 2009) when initial testing was manipulated within subjects. Moreover, consistent with the testing effect literature (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), the benefits of repeated testing on later memory were stronger after a 1-week delay than after a 30-min delay, thus reducing the negative impact of RES in long-term situations. These findings suggest that conditions that are likely to occur in criminal investigations can either increase (repeated testing) or reduce (delay) the influence of RES, thus further demonstrating the complex relationship between eyewitness memory and repeated retrieval. REPEATED TESTING AND EYEWITNESS MEMORY 2 AbstractEyewitnesses typically recount their experiences many times before trial. Such repeated retrieval

show abstract

“…This finding is consistent with previous research that demonstrated a disruption in the relationship between confidence and accuracy in the misinformation and retrieval enhanced suggestibility (RES) paradigm. For example, Thomas et al (2010) found that participants who took a cued recall test before the presentation of a post-event narrative that included details inconsistent with the original event were over-confident in produced suggested details, and under-confident in correct details associated with misleading trials. The paradigm used by Thomas et al is Increased uncertainty on misleading trials may be an indirect result of test-potentiated learning.…”

Section: Fluctuations In Certainty and Accuracy Across Multiple Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, even when these correct details are reported, they will be accompanied by more hesitation markers as compared to non-misinformation conditions. Further, we hypothesized that testing that precedes the postevent narrative should increase learning of new misleading details, which in turn will result in temporary inaccessibility of original event details (e.g., Gordon & Thomas, 2014;Gordon, Thomas, & Bulevich, in press;Thomas, Bulevich, & Chan, 2010). We hypothesize that temporary inaccessibility or increased retrieval effort will be indicated by an increase in hesitation markers associated with correctly retrieved details.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, immediate retrieval followed by the presentation of misinformation should result in more accompanying hesitation markers than misinformation presentation that does not follow immediate retrieval. This prediction emerges from the finding that retrieval prior to the presentation of a post-event narrative increased learning of details in the narrative, and also increased response latencies on a final test of memory on misleading trials (e.g., Thomas et al, 2010). Increased response latencies suggested that participants had to spend more time deciding between multiple possible final answers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Choose Your Words Wisely: What Verbal Hesitation Indicates About Eyewitness Accuracy

Thomas

Chen

Gordon

et al. 2015

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryResearchers have demonstrated qualitative differences in witness verbal reports made in the presence and absence of misinformation. The present study examined changes in linguistic markers present in verbal reports in the context of a repeated‐retrieval misinformation study. After witnessing an event, an immediate retrieval group engaged in a free‐recall test associated with the event. The delayed retrieval group completed a filler task. Following, all participants were presented with a post‐event narrative that included neutral, consistent, and misleading details. Both groups then took two free‐recall tests. We found that hesitations were more likely to accompany correctly remembered details if those details were altered in the narrative, than if there was consistency between the original event and narrative. We also found that retrieval prior to misinformation positively influenced the inclusion of hesitations in free‐recall reports that immediately followed the narrative.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Testing promotes eyewitness accuracy with a warning: Implications for retrieval enhanced suggestibility

Cited by 59 publications

References 43 publications

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall.

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

Choose Your Words Wisely: What Verbal Hesitation Indicates About Eyewitness Accuracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About