Mediators and Moderators of Reinforced Self-Affirmation as a Method for Reducing the Memory Misinformation Effect

The misinformation effect occurs when an eyewitness includes information in his or her account that is incongruent with the event he or she witnessed, and stems from being exposed to incorrect external sources. This is a serious threat to the quality of witness testimony and to the correctness of decisions reached by courts. However, few methods have been developed to reduce the vulnerability of witnesses to misinformation. This article presents such a method, namely, reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), which, by increasing memory confidence of witnesses, makes them less inclined to rely on external sources of information and more on their own memory. The effectiveness of this method was confirmed in three experiments. It was also found that memory confidence, but not general self-confidence, is a mediator of the impact of RSA on misinformation effect (ME), and that contingent self-esteem and feedback acceptance, but not sense of self-efficacy or general self-esteem, are moderators of this impact. It is concluded that RSA may be a promising basis for constructing methods, which can be used by forensic psychologists in real forensic settings.

Placebos Affect Retrospective and Prospective Memory Performance by Increasing Monitoring

<p>Decreasing physical pain, increasing emotional wellbeing, and improving physical health are just some of the ways placebos have affected people's physiological and psychological health (Crum & Langer, 2007; Kirsch & Sapirstein, 1999; Montgomery & Kirsch, 1997). Recently, Clifasefi, Garry, Harper, Sharman, and Sutherland (2007) demonstrated that a memory placebo called R273 could even reduce people's susceptibility to misleading information. Yet how could a substance with no physiologically active properties affect memory performance? That is the overarching question of this thesis. In order to monitor the sources of information about the past, and in order to remember future tasks and actions, people can either use an effortful monitoring process, or they can rely on their usual, automatic and effortless memory processes. Typically, the more monitoring that people use, the better their memory performance (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Einstein et al., 2005). In this thesis, over three experiments, I examined how a placebo might affect the way people monitor information, thus improving aspects of retrospective and prospective memory. Experiment 1 examined whether R273 reduces people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect by leading them to switch from their habitual, automatic, and easy source monitoring to more deliberate and effortful source monitoring. To examine this question I used Clifasefi et al.'s (2007) sham drug procedure and then ran subjects through a three-stage misinformation experiment (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). The results of Experiments 1 suggest that R273 did not affect effortful monitoring during the post event information (PEI), but did affect effortful monitoring during the memory test. Experiment 2 aimed to find further evidence that R273 affects people's monitoring during the memory test. To address this question, all subjects were told that they had received an inactive drug before they took part in the first two stages of the misinformation effect paradigm. Immediately before taking the memory test, however, I falsely told some people that they had actually received R273. The primary finding of Experiment 2 added support to the idea that R273 affects subjects source monitoring during the memory test: Told Drug subjects were less misled than their Told Inactive counterparts. Finally, Experiment 3 further examined whether R273 leads people to use effortful monitoring, but did so using a prospective memory task, whose underlying memory processes align closely with those of source monitoring. The results showed that Told Drug subjects were slower to perform an ongoing and concurrent task, yet had better prospective memory performance than Told Inactive subjects. These results suggested that R273 lead Told Drug subjects' to use more effortful monitoring. In conclusion, the results suggest that the sham cognitive enhancing placebo R273 improves people's ability to resist misleading suggestion, and perform prospective memory tasks because it leads them to use more effortful monitoring.</p>

Placebos Affect Retrospective and Prospective Memory Performance by Increasing Monitoring

<p>Decreasing physical pain, increasing emotional wellbeing, and improving physical health are just some of the ways placebos have affected people's physiological and psychological health (Crum & Langer, 2007; Kirsch & Sapirstein, 1999; Montgomery & Kirsch, 1997). Recently, Clifasefi, Garry, Harper, Sharman, and Sutherland (2007) demonstrated that a memory placebo called R273 could even reduce people's susceptibility to misleading information. Yet how could a substance with no physiologically active properties affect memory performance? That is the overarching question of this thesis. In order to monitor the sources of information about the past, and in order to remember future tasks and actions, people can either use an effortful monitoring process, or they can rely on their usual, automatic and effortless memory processes. Typically, the more monitoring that people use, the better their memory performance (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Einstein et al., 2005). In this thesis, over three experiments, I examined how a placebo might affect the way people monitor information, thus improving aspects of retrospective and prospective memory. Experiment 1 examined whether R273 reduces people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect by leading them to switch from their habitual, automatic, and easy source monitoring to more deliberate and effortful source monitoring. To examine this question I used Clifasefi et al.'s (2007) sham drug procedure and then ran subjects through a three-stage misinformation experiment (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). The results of Experiments 1 suggest that R273 did not affect effortful monitoring during the post event information (PEI), but did affect effortful monitoring during the memory test. Experiment 2 aimed to find further evidence that R273 affects people's monitoring during the memory test. To address this question, all subjects were told that they had received an inactive drug before they took part in the first two stages of the misinformation effect paradigm. Immediately before taking the memory test, however, I falsely told some people that they had actually received R273. The primary finding of Experiment 2 added support to the idea that R273 affects subjects source monitoring during the memory test: Told Drug subjects were less misled than their Told Inactive counterparts. Finally, Experiment 3 further examined whether R273 leads people to use effortful monitoring, but did so using a prospective memory task, whose underlying memory processes align closely with those of source monitoring. The results showed that Told Drug subjects were slower to perform an ongoing and concurrent task, yet had better prospective memory performance than Told Inactive subjects. These results suggested that R273 lead Told Drug subjects' to use more effortful monitoring. In conclusion, the results suggest that the sham cognitive enhancing placebo R273 improves people's ability to resist misleading suggestion, and perform prospective memory tasks because it leads them to use more effortful monitoring.</p>

0116 Opposing Effects of Sleep on The Misinformation Effect: Sleep Promotes and Prevents Memory Distortion

Introduction The effect of sleep on false memory is equivocal. In the Deese-Roediger-McDermott illusory memory paradigm, some work shows that sleep increases false recall whereas other work shows that sleep decreases false recognition. Given these ambiguous findings, we sought to investigate the effect of sleep on false memory using the misinformation paradigm. Methods Participants watched a short film depicting a home burglary, received misinformation about the film, and were tested on their memory for the film. The recognition test was given after a 12-hour retention interval that included either sleep or wake. We manipulated the time at which participants received misinformation. Half were given misinformation after encoding (before sleep or wake) and the other half were given misinformation after the retention interval (after sleep or wake). Results There was a main effect of condition on correct recognition; participants in the sleep group showed higher correct recognition than those in the wake group. On false memory, there was a main effect of timing of misinformation and an interaction between condition and timing of misinformation. That is, the effect of sleep on false memory depended on when misinformation was administered. If misinformation was given after the retention interval, false memory tended to be lower after sleep than wake whereas if misinformation was given before the retention interval, false memory tended to be higher after sleep than wake. Conclusion Sleep can both protect against and facilitate memory distortion depending on when misinformation is encountered. These results inform our understanding of consolidation processes. When consolidation acts on true memory alone, it strengthens that memory making it resistant to distortion. Conversely, when misinformation is presented before consolidation, sleep may integrate misinformation into memory for the true event, increasing distortion. This work has important theoretical implications for memory consolidation and important applied implications for interrogation practices. Support N/A

Memory Training as a Method for Reducing the Misinformation Effect

The two experiments presented in this study investigate the impact of memory training on the misinformation effect. This effect is particularly important in the forensic context as exposing a witness to misinformation may adversely affect the content of their testimony. During the training, the participants were acquainted with seven (Experiment 1) or six (Experiment 2) types of memory errors. It was expected that knowledge of the unreliability of human memory would reduce the misinformation effect and therefore improve the quality of testimony. These hypotheses were confirmed in both experiments. The efficacy of both the complete and reduced training courses was not statistically different. Additionally, in Experiment 1 the effectiveness of warning against misinformation was replicated: respondents warned about misinformation were more resistant to it than those not warned. The tainted truth effect was also present: people warned against non-existent misinformation had lower correctness in the memory test than non-warned ones. Finally, immediate recall of the content of the original information had no impact on the misinformation effect.

Medical professionals’ (mis)remembering of a simulated interaction with a patient: A medical misinformation effect

Background: Memory plays a vital role in the reporting of medical errors. Current reporting policies allow clinicians days, or even weeks, to report medical errors. Decades of memory research demonstrates that memories of events can become distorted within minutes of being exposed to misleading information (misinformation).Objectives: Our objective was to assess the extent to which clinicians could accurately recall aspects of an interaction with a patient shortly after the clinicians had been exposed to misinformation.Methods: 13 clinicians individually participated in a simulated interaction with a patient. Shortly after the interaction, we misled the clinicians about several aspects of that interaction. A few minutes later, we tested the clinicians’ memory for those misled aspects, along with other aspects we did not mislead them about. We also asked the clinicians how confident they were in their memory for those aspects. We tested clinicians’ memory for the same aspects of the interaction again 15 working days later.Results: We found clinicians were less accurate when we misled them about certain aspects of their interaction with a patient. Despite being less accurate, clinicians were just as confident about the aspects for which they had received misinformation as they were about the aspects they had not. Furthermore, after 15 working days, clinicians had poor memory for the tested aspects of their interaction.Conclusions: Our results suggest that reports of patient safety incidents could plausibly be compromised by misleading information. Delays between patient safety incidents and the reporting of those incidents could therefore compromise our ability to understand the true causes of medical errors.