2014
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3066
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Counterintuitive Relationship between Conceptual and Perceptual Similarities and Eyewitness Suggestibility

Abstract: The tendency to confuse witnessed and suggested information can result in inaccurate eyewitness testimonies and convictions of innocent people. Studies that tested how similarities between witnessed and suggested information affect the tendency to confuse them reached inconsistent results. Here, we claim that there is a more complex and not necessarily linear relationship between similarity and memory distortions. Participants (164) viewed two subsequent stories, which varied in the conceptual and perceptual s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

2
0
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They then viewed the first crime scenario for five seconds. This exposure duration is consistent with exposure durations used in previous studies using similar methodologies (e.g., Levy-Gigi & Vakil, 2014;Prull & Yockelson, 2013;Wang & Pomplun, 2012). Following this, participants completed a short distraction task (mathematical problem) for 5 min.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 69%
“…They then viewed the first crime scenario for five seconds. This exposure duration is consistent with exposure durations used in previous studies using similar methodologies (e.g., Levy-Gigi & Vakil, 2014;Prull & Yockelson, 2013;Wang & Pomplun, 2012). Following this, participants completed a short distraction task (mathematical problem) for 5 min.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 69%
“…They then viewed the first crime scenario for five seconds. This exposure duration is consistent with exposure durations used in previous studies using similar methodologies (e.g., Levy-Gigi & Vakil, 2014;Prull & Yockelson, 2013;Wang & Pomplun, 2012). Following this, participants completed a short distraction task (mathematical problem) for five minutes.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 69%