Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 213–228 | Cite as

Child and adult witnesses: the effect of repetition and invitation-probes on free recall and metamemory realism

  • Jens KnutssonEmail author
  • Carl Martin Allwood
  • Marcus Johansson
Article

Abstract

Witnesses’ event recall and the realism in their evaluation of the correctness of their recall are of great importance in forensic processes. These issues were investigated in the present study by use of calibration methodology. More specifically, we analyzed the effects of two recalls of the same event (repetition) and of probes (non-informative follow-up questions at recall) on 9–11 year-old children’s and adults’ open free recall and the degree of realism in the participants’ confidence judgments of the correctness of the recall after they had seen a short video clip. The findings were that repetition resulted in more units recalled both for children and for adults, and in that the children showed higher overconfidence compared with one recall, but not the adults. Moreover, when only the statements in the repetition conditions that were recalled twice were included in the analysis, higher confidence was found for the children (independent of an increase in the proportion correct statements of all statements) but not for the adults. Probing increased the number of units recalled for both children and adults, decreased the children’s proportion correct statements but not the adults’, decreased both children’s and adults’ confidence and increased the children’s overconfidence, but not the adults’. Finally, the combination of two recalls and probing disrupted the children’s but not the adults’ metacognitive performance.

Keywords

Metacognition Confidence judgments Reiteration Eyewitnesses Event memory Free recall Metamemory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financed by a grant from the Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority (The Crime Victim Fund). The authors would like to thank Jonna Björnheden and Niklas Lijedahl for help with the data collection.

References

  1. Allwood, C. M., Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2005). The cognitive interview: effects on the realism in witnesses’ confidence in their free recall. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allwood, C. M., Innes-Ker, Å., Holmgren, J., & Fredin, G. (2008). Children’s and adults’ realism in their event-recall confidence in response to free recall and focused questions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyce, M., Beaudry, J. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Belief of eyewitness identification evidence. In R. C. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. Don Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, volume 2, memory for people (pp. 501–525). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casell, W. S., Roebers, C. E. M., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1996). Developmental patterns of eyewitness responses to repeated and increasingly suggestive questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 116–133.Google Scholar
  6. Cutler, B., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Ebbesen, E. B., & Rienick, C. B. (1998). Retention interval and eyewitness memory for events and personal identifying attributes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 745–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Allwood, C. M. (2000). Effects of reiteration, hindsight bias, and memory on realism in eyewitness confidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1997). The reiteration effect in hindsight bias. Psychological Review, 104, 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutcheson, G. D., Baxter, J. S., Telfer, K., & Warden, D. (1995). Child witness statement quality: question type and errors of omission. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koriat, A. (2002). Metacognition research: an interim report. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., Schneider, W., & Nakash-Dura, M. (2001). The credibility of children’s testimony: can children control the accuracy of their memory reports? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135, 36–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. La Rooy, D., Pipe, M.-E., & Murray, J. E. (2005). Reminiscence and hypermnesia in children’s eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. La Rooy, D., Pipe, M.-E., & Murray, J. E. (2007). Enhancing children’s event recall after long delays. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leippe, M. R. (1980). Effects of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 909–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Memon, A., & Vartoukian, R. (1996). The effects of repeated questioning on young children’s eyewitness testimony. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Odinot, G., & Wolters, G. (2006). Repeated recall, retention interval and the accuracy—confidence relation in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 973–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Odinot, G., Wolters, G., & Lavender, T. (2009). Repeated partial eyewitness questioning causes confidence inflation but not retrieval-induced forgetting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Owen-Kostelnik, J., Reppucci, N. D., & Meyer, J. R. (2006). Testimony and interrogation of minors. American Psychologist, 61, 286–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witness talk: a Survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pipe, M. E., Gee, S., Wilson, C., & Egerton, J. M. (1999). Children’s recall 1 or 2 years after an event. Developmental Psychology, 35, 781–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2004). Recent research on children’s testimony about experienced and witnessed events. Developmental Review, 24, 440–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarwar, F., Allwood, C.M., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2011). Effects of communication with a non-witness on eyewitnesses’ recall correctness and metacognitive realism. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/acp.1749
  30. Schraw, G. (2009). Measuring metacognitive judgments. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 415–429). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Shaw, J. S., III. (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 126–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaw III, J. S. & McClure, K. A. (1996). Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(6).Google Scholar
  33. Shaw, J. S., McClure, K. A., & Dykstra, J. A. (2007). Eyewitness confidence from the witnessed event through trial. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, (vol. 1) (pp. 371–397). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Lost but not forgotten details: repeated eyewitness recall leads to reminiscence but not hyperamnesia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wells, G., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75.Google Scholar
  36. Yates, J. F. (1994). Subjective probability accuracy analysis. In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability (pp. 381–410). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Yuille, J. C., Marxen, D., & Cooper, B. (1999). Training investigative interviewers: adherence to the spirit, as well as the letter. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Knutsson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carl Martin Allwood
    • 2
  • Marcus Johansson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of psychologyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations