Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model

  • Michael S. Ayers
  • Lynne M. RederEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article reviews the major empirical results and theoretical issues from over 20 years of research on people’s acceptance of false information about recently experienced events (see, e.g., Loftus, 1975). Several theoretical perspectives are assessed in terms of their ability to account for the various and sometimes conflicting results in the literature. Theoretical perspectives reviewed include the trace alteration hypothesis, the blocking hypothesis, the task demands/strategic effects hypothesis, source monitoring, and an activation-based semantic memory account. On the basis of its ability to account for the reviewed data and other cognitive phenomena, an activation-based semantic network model of memory is suggested for understanding the data and planning future research in the area.

Keywords

Retention Interval False Memory Strategic Effect Misinformation Effect Suggested Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1974a). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory.Cognitive Psychology,6, 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1974b). Verbatim and propositional representation of sentences in immediate and long-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1976).Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. R. (1993).Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, J. R., &Bower, G. H. (1973).Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, J. R., &Reder, L. M. (in press). The fan effect: New results and new theories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.Google Scholar
  8. Barnes, J. M., &Underwood, B. J. (1959). “Fate” of first-list associations in transfer theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 97–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bekerian, D. A., &Bowers, J. M. (1983). Eyewitness testimony: Were we misled?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belli, R. F. (1989). Influences of misleading postevent information: Misinformation interference and acceptance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Belli, R. F. (1993). Failure of interpolated tests in inducing memory impairment with final modified tests: Evidence unfavorable to the blocking hypothesis.American Journal of Psychology,106, 407–427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Belli, R. F., Lindsay, D. S., Gales, M. S., &McCarthy, T. T. (1994). Memory impairment and source misattribution in postevent misinformation experiments with short retention intervals.Memory & Cognition,22, 40–54.Google Scholar
  13. Belli, R. F., Windschitl, P. D., McCarthy, T. T., &Winfrey, S. E. (1992). Detecting memory impairment with a modified test procedure: Manipulating retention interval with centrally presented event items.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 356–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bower, G. H. (1996). Reactivating a reactivation theory of implicit memory.Consciousness & Cognition,5, 27–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bowers, J. M., &Bekerian, D. A. (1984). When will postevent information distort eyewitness testimony?Journal of Applied Psychology,69, 466–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bowman, L. L., &Zaragoza, M. S. (1989). Similarity of encoding context does not influence resistance to memory impairment following misinformation.American Journal of Psychology,102, 249–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ceci, S. J., &Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis.Psychological Bulletin,113, 403–439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ceci, S. J., Ross, D. F., &Toglia, M. P. (1987). Suggestibility of children’s memory: Psycholegal implications.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1116, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chandler, C. C. (1989). Specific retroactive interference in modified recognition tests: Evidence for an unknown cause of interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 256–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chandler, C. C. (1991). How memory for an event is influenced by related events: Interference in modified recognition tests.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chandler, C. C., &Gargano, G. J. (1995). Item-specific interference caused by cue-dependent forgetting.Memory & Cognition,23, 701–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crowder, R. G. (1976).Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., &Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 208–214.Google Scholar
  25. Greenberg, R., &Underwood, B. J. (1950). Retention as a function of stage of practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology,40, 452–457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, E., Flynn, M. S., &Loftus, E. F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hyman, I. E., Jr.,Husband, T. H., &Billings, F. J. (1995). False memories of childhood experiences.Applied Cognitive Psychology,9, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., &Kelley, C. M. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by divided attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, M. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: An experimental phenomenological approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 390–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring.Psychological Review,88, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kamas, E. N., &Reder, L. M. (1994). The role of familiarity in cognitive processing. In E. O’Brien & R. Lorch (Eds.),Sources of coherence in text comprehension: A festschrift in honor of Jerome L. Myers (pp. 177–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Kamas, E. N., Reder, L. M., &Ayers, M. S. (1996). Partial matching in the Moses illusion: Response bias not sensitivity.Memory & Cognition,24, 687–699.Google Scholar
  34. Kelley, C. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Memory attributions: Remembering, knowing, and feeling of knowing. In L. M. Reder (Ed.),Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 287–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Keppel, G., &Underwood, B. J. (1962). Proactive inhibition in shortterm retention of single items.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,1, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses’ ability to remember event details.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 116, 1077–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindsay, D. S. (1991). CHARMed but not convinced: Comment on Metcalfe (1990).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1987). Reality monitoring and eyewitness suggestibility: Young children’s ability to discriminate among memories from different sources. In J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F. Ross (Eds.),Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 92–121). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1989a). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source.Memory & Cognition,17, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1989b). The reversed eyewitness suggestibility effect.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 111–113.Google Scholar
  41. Lindsay, D. S., &Read, J. D. (1994). Psychotherapy and memories of childhood sexual abuse: A cognitive perspective.Applied Cognitive Psychology,8, 281–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report.Cognitive Psychology,7, 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information.Memory & Cognition,7, 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loftus, E. F. (1991). Made in memory: Distortions in recollection after misleading information. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 27, pp. 187–215). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Loftus, E. F., Donders, K., Hoffman, H. G., &Schooler, J. W. (1989). Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held.Memory & Cognition,17, 607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Loftus, E. F., &Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Loftus, E. F., &Ketcham, K. (1994).The myth of repressed memory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  48. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., &Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Loftus, E. F., &Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Loftus, E. F., Schooler, J. W., &Wagenaar, W. (1985). The fate of memory: Comment on McCloskey and Zaragoza.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lovett, M. C., &Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection.Cognitive Psychology,31, 168–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McClelland, J. L., &Rumelhart, D. E. (1986).Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructures of cognition: Vol 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. McCloskey, M., &Zaragoza, M. (1985a). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCloskey, M., &Zaragoza, M. (1985b). Postevent information and memory: Reply to Loftus, Schooler, and Wagenaar.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McDermott, K. B. (1996). The persistence of false memories in list recall.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McGeoch, J. A. (1932). Forgetting and the law of disuse.Psychological Review,39, 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McGeoch, J. A. (1942).The psychology of human learning, New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
  58. McGeoch, J. A., &McDonald, W. T. (1931). Meaningful relation and retroactive inhibition.American Journal of Psychology,43, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Melton, A. W., &Irwin, J. M. (1940). The influence of degree of interpolated learning on retroactive inhibition and the overt transfer of specific responses.American Journal of Psychology,53, 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Metcalfe, J. (1990). Composite holographic associative recall model (CHARM) and blended memories in eyewitness testimony.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Metcalfe, J. (1991). Representations, predictions and remembrances in CHARM: A reply to Lindsay (1991).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 313–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Metcalfe, J., &Bjork, R. A. (1991). Composite models never (well hardly ever) compromise: Reply to Schooler and Tanaka (1991).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., &Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cue familiarity heuristic in metacognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 851–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Miller, N. E., &Stevenson, S. S. (1936). Agitated behavior of rats during experimental extinction and a curve of spontaneous recovery.Journal of Comparative Psychology,21, 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mitchell, K. J., &Zaragoza, M. S. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and false memory: The role of contextual variability.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Morton, J., Hammersley, R. H., &Bekerian, D. A. (1985). Headed records: A model for memory and its failures.Cognition,20, 1–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Nhouyvanisvong, A., &Reder, L. M. (in press). Rapid feeling-ofknowing: A strategy selection mechanism. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne,Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution.Psychological Review,56, 132–143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Payne, D. G., Elie, C. J., Blackwell, J. M., &Neuschatz, J. S. (1996). Memory illusions: Recalling, recognizing, and recollecting events that never occurred.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Payne, D. G., Toglia, M. P., &Anastasi, J. S. (1994). Recognition performance level and the magnitude of the misinformation effect in eyewitness memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 376–382.Google Scholar
  71. Postman, L., &Underwood, B. J. (1973). Critical issues in interference theory.Memory & Cognition,1, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rantzen, A., &Markham, R. (1992). The reversed eyewitness testimony design: More evidence for source monitoring.Journal of General Psychology,119, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ratcliff, R. A., &McKoon, G. (1981). Does activation really spread?Psychological Review,88, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Read, J. D. (1996). From a passing thought to a false memory in 2 minutes: Confusing real and illusory events.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 105–111.Google Scholar
  75. Reder, L. M., &Anderson, J. R. (1980). A partial resolution of the paradox of interference: The role of integrating knowledge.Cognitive Psychology,12, 447–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Reder, L. M., &Gordon, J. S. (1997). Subliminal perception: Nothing special, cognitively speaking. In J. Cohen & J. Schooler (Eds.),Cognitive and neuropsychological approaches to the study of consciousness (pp. 125–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Reder, L. M., &Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?Journal of Memory & Language,30, 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reder, L. M.,Nhouyvanisvong, A.,Ayers, M. S.,Schunn, C. D.,Angstadt, P., &Hiraki, K. (1998).Modeling the word frequency mirror effect in a remember/know paradigm. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  79. Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., &Hiraki, K. (1997). Modeling the mirror effect in a continuous remember/know paradigm.Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 644–649). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Reder, L. M., &Ritter, F. E. (1992). What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Reder, L. M., &Ross, B. H. (1983). Integrated knowledge in different tasks: The role of retrieval strategy on fan effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Reder, L. M., &Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.),Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 45–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. Reder, L. M., &Wible, C. (1984). Strategy use in question-answering: Memory strength and task constraints on fan effects.Memory & Cognition,12, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roediger, H. L., III,Jacoby, D., &McDermott, K. B. (1996). Misinformation effects in recall: Creating false memories through repeated retrieval.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Roediger, H. L., III, &Schmidt, S. R. (1980). Output interference in the recall of categorized and paired associate lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schooler, J. W., Foster, R. A., &Loftus, E. F. (1988). Some deleterious consequences of the act of recollection.Memory & Cognition,16, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schooler, J. W., &Tanaka, J. W. (1991). Composites, compromises, and CHARM: What is the evidence for blend memory representations?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schunn, C. D., Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Richards, D. R., &Stroffolino, P. J. (1997). To calculate or not calculate: A source activation confusion model of problem familiarity’s role in strategy selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Smith, A. D. (1971). Output interference and organized recall from long-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness.Canadian Psychologist,26, 1–12.Google Scholar
  92. Tversky, B., &Tuchin, M. (1989). A reconciliation of the evidence on eyewitness testimony: Comments on McCloskey and Zaragoza.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting.Psychological Review,64, 49–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Underwood, B. J. (1965). False recognition produced by implicit verbal responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology,70, 122–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Warren, A. R., &Lane, P. (1995). Effects of timing and type of questioning on eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. In M. S. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman, & Y. S. Ben-Porath (Eds.),Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 44–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  96. Weingardt, K. R., Loftus, E. F., &Lindsay, D. S. (1995). Misinformation revisited: New evidence on the suggestibility of memory.Memory & Cognition,23, 72–82.Google Scholar
  97. Wells, G. L., &Turtle, J.W. (1987). Eyewitness testimony research: Current knowledge and emergent controversies.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,19, 363–388.Google Scholar
  98. Wheeler, M. A. (1995). Improvement in recall over time without repeated testing: Spontaneous recovery revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Windschitl, P. D. (1996). Memory for faces: Evidence of retrievalbased impairment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1101–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zaragoza, M. S., &Koshmider, J.W., III (1989). Misled subjects may know more than their performance implies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zaragoza, M. S., &Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 934–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zaragoza, M. S., McCloskey, M., &Jamis, M. (1987). Misleading postevent information and recall of the original event: Further evidence against the memory impairment hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zaragoza, M. S., &Mitchell, K. J. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and the creation of false memories.Psychological Science,7, 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations