Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp 1069–1076 | Cite as

Reevaluating the potency of the memory conformity effect

  • Glen E. Bodner
  • Elisabeth Musch
  • Tanjeem Azad
Article

Abstract

Witnesses sometimes report event details that are acquired solely from another witness. We reevaluated the potency of this memory conformity effect. After viewing a crime video, some participants learned about nonwitnessed details via discussion (dyad group), reading another participant’s report (read group), or watching another version of the video (both-video group). In Experiment 1, these participants often reported nonwitnessed details, but on a source-judgment test most details were attributed primarily to the actual source rather than to the video. In addition, the dyad group was not more likely than the read or both-video groups to report nonwitnessed details. Participants in Experiment 2 were explicitly discouraged from providing details that were remembered from the secondary source only. These postwarning instructions substantially reduced the memory conformity effect, and a dyad group was not more likely than a read group to report nonwitnessed details. Encouraging source monitoring at test can reduce the negative consequences of co-witness collaboration.

Keywords

Secondary Source Read Group Source Monitoring Critical Detail Crime Event 
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. Ayers, M. S., &Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betz, A. L., Skowronski, J. J., &Ostrom, T. M. (1996). Shared realities: Social influence and stimulus memory.Social Cognition,14, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers, K. L., &Zaragoza, M. S. (2001). Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests.Memory & Cognition,29, 1120–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deutsch, M., &Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., &Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics.Memory & Cognition,33, 770–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., &Wright, D. B. (2004). Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation.Legal & Criminological Psychology,9, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., &Wright, D. B. (2006). Memory conformity: Disentangling the steps toward influence during a discussion.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 480–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., &Wright, D. B. (2007). I saw it for longer than you: The relationship between perceived encoding duration and memory conformity.Acta Psychologica,124, 319–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoffman, H. G., Granhag, P. A., Kwong See, S. T., &Loftus, E. F. (2001). Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions.Memory & Cognition,29, 394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hope, L., Ost, J., Gabbert, F., Healey, S., &Lenton, E. (2008). “With a little help from my friends …”: The role of co-witness relationship in susceptibility to misinformation.Acta Psychologica,127, 476–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses’ ability to remember event details.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 1077–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source.Memory & Cognition,17, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Luus, C. A. E., &Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects.Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 714–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsh, R. L., &Hicks, J. L. (1998). Test formats change sourcemonitoring decision processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1137–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCloskey, M., &Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meade, M. L., &Roediger, H. L., III (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory.Memory & Cognition,30, 995–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ost, J., Ghonouie, H., Cook, L., &Vrij, A. (2008). The effects of confederate influence and confidence on the accuracy of crime judgments.Acta Psychologica,128, 25–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Paterson, H. M., &Kemp, R. I. (2006a). Comparing methods of encountering post-event information: The power of co-witness suggestion.Applied Cognitive Psychology,20, 1083–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paterson, H. M., &Kemp, R. I. (2006b). Co-witnesses talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion.Psychology, Crime & Law,12, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pickrell, J. E., Bernstein, D. M., &Loftus, E. F. (2004). The misinformation effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.),Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 345–361). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Reysen, M. B. (2003). The effects of social pressure on group recall.Memory & Cognition,31, 1163–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reysen, M. B. (2005). The effects of conformity on recognition judgements.Memory,13, 87–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Roediger, H. L., III,Meade, M. L., &Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider, D. M., &Watkins, M. J. (1996). Response conformity in recognition testing.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 481–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shaw, J. S., III,Garven, S., &Wood, J. M. (1997). Co-witness information can have immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports.Law & Human Behaviour,21, 503–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skagerberg, E. M., &Wright, D. B. (2008). The prevalence of cowitnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses.Psychology, Crime & Law,14, 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., &Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads.Law & Human Behavior,22, 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright, D. B., Gabbert, F., Memon, A., &London, K. (2008). Changing the criterion for memory conformity in free recall and recognition.Memory,16, 137–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright, D. B., Self, G., &Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person.British Journal of Psychology,91, 189–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glen E. Bodner
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Musch
    • 1
  • Tanjeem Azad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations