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

Chan, Jason C. K.; LaPaglia, Jessica A.

doi:10.1037/a0025147

Cited by 40 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to the idea that RES is contingent on an initial cued recall test that draws attention to the later misinformation, the present results indicate that the RES effect might be more pervasive than previously thought. Overall, the effect has been found in free recall, cued recall, recognition Thomas et al, 2010), and source discrimination (Chan et al, 2012); it occurs at delays of 30 min, 48 hr, and a week between the witnessed event and final test (regardless of whether the misinformation occurs before or after the delay, Chan & Langley, 2011;Chan & LaPaglia, 2011), and it is found in both between-and within-subjects comparisons (Chan & LaPaglia, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the RES effect has been reported in various procedures (e.g., Chan & Langley, 2011;Chan & LaPaglia, 2011;, several important aspects of its generality remain unclear.…”

Section: Retrieval Enhances Eyewitness Suggestibility To Misinformatimentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wilford¹,

Chan²,

Tuhn³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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 & LaPaglia, 2011). This finding, termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES), is surprising because retrieval often enhances retention of an event (i.e., the testing effect; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006).…”

Section: Testing Increases Suggestibility For Narrative-based Misinfomentioning

confidence: 96%

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

LaPaglia

Chan

2013

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…That is, recent studies have demonstrated elevated false memory rates after taking a test (e.g., Chan & Langley, 2011; Chan & LaPaglia, 2011; Gordon & Thomas, 2014; Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2014). This effect, labeled retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility (Chan et al, 2009), may be related to two underlying mechanisms: a focus on the misinformed items or the overwriting of the original memory trace because of testing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Brackmann

Otgaar

Sauerland

et al. 2016

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWitnesses are frequently questioned immediately following a crime. The effects of such testing on false recall are inconclusive: Testing may inoculate against subsequent misinformation or enhance false memory formation. We examined whether different types of processing can account for these discrepancies. Drawing from Fuzzy‐trace and Associative‐activation theories, immediate questions that trigger the processing of the global understanding of the event can heighten false memory rates. However, questions that trigger the processing of specific details can inoculate memories against subsequent misinformation. These effects were hypothesized to be more pronounced in children than in adults. Seven/eight‐, 11/12‐, 14/15‐year‐olds, and adults (N = 220) saw a mock‐theft film and were tested immediately with meaning or item‐specific questions. Test results on the succeeding day replicated classic misinformation and testing effects, although our processing hypothesis was not supported. Only adults who received meaning questions benefited from immediate testing and, across all ages, testing led to retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility. © 2016 The Authors. Applied Cognitive Psychology Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

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

Cited by 40 publications

References 78 publications

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

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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About