Chapter 3: Reliability of cognitive processes: reconstructive memory

Question 1

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Answer 1

Famous study on eyewitness testimony. Consists of two experiments because of two competing hypotheses (response bias vs memory change.

See power-point on the psychology class of 08/01/2020
Very good study to know in detail
1.
A: Investigate the validity of eye testimony
M: Independent measures design
P: Show slides of cars colliding. Shown a questionnaire where the critical question was regarding the speed of the collision, different groups were given different keywords,
smashed, hit or control (not given question at all)
R: Smashed group estimated 40ish mph whereas hit group estimated 30mph
C: Either response bias or memory change
E: Ecological validity

2. A: Is it response bias or memory change?
   M: Independent measures design
   P: Shown similar slides with the same questionnaire (or narrative) with the smashed, hit and control groups. A week later given another questionnaire where the critical question was whether or not there was broken glass (there was none).
   R: The smashed group 32% said that there was, hit 14% control 12%
   C: Must be memory change; post-event info and info obtained during event integrates and becomes indistinguishable; theory of reconstructive memory + schema theory.
   E: Visual vs. auditory memory (all information was verbal) so maybe it didn’t alter visual memory

Question 2

Reconstructive memory

Answer 2

Memory is an active process that involves the reconstruction of information

Question 3

Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978)

Answer 3

A: Test the criticisms for experiment 2 of Loftus & Palmer (1974).

M: Independent measures

P: Two groups, shown either a slide with stop or yield sign. Half of each group were given false information regarding what sign (in the shape of a question),
other half consistent information. Then a forced-choice recognition test after a filler task where they had to guess what slide it was that they had seen initially.

R: Inconsistent information was 41% right, consistent information 75% right.

C: Misleading post-event verbal information was integrated with visual information from before which resulted in reconstructive memory. Answered previous criticism from #2.

E: Results may have been obtained through response bias.

Question 4

McCloskey and Zaragoza (1985)

Answer 4

A: To suggest an alternative explanation for the results of Loftus, Miller and Burns; that it was response bias.
M: Independent measures design
P: Similar to Loftus: participants were shown a series of slides depicting a maintenance man entering an office to repair a chair, stealing 20 bucks and a calculator in the process. All participants were shown a hammer in the slides, and afterward, they were divided into 3 groups. They had to listen to a narrative that included different tools; group 1 (the control group) was told a “tool” was used; groups 2 and 3 were told a wrench was used. Then they were given a forced-choice test [see results].

R: https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/82913249_2183355655292942_1095598379993399296_n.png?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ohc=p-Lwob61tiEAX-F1Z5l&_nc_ht=scontent-arn2-1.xx&oh=4a440739c757b64d35cd3b49fbe2b898&oe=5E94D538

C: These findings suggest that the misleading information received from the narrative does not influence the original memory. The explanation for the low accuracy of group 2 is possibly because the participants simply forgot details from the original slides, which the narrative then filled in.
E: sample size??

Question 5

Payne, Toglia and Anastasi (1994)

Answer 5

Aimed at conducting a meta-analysis of 44 studies that used the modified recognition test (used in McCloskey). All studies combined; the recognition level of the misled condition was lower (statistically significant) than the recognition level in the control group. Researchers claimed that the misinformation effect exists in the studies and that the misinformation effect is much more likely the longer the retention interval is. Supports Loftus.

Question 6

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Answer 6

Aimed at conducting a misinformation experiment in a naturalistic setting (eye-witness testimony). Researchers found (13 eyewitnesses interviewed) that witnesses were largely able to recall great details without any misinformation (half of the participants were asked leading questions). The authors did, however, admit that this might be because the memories were flashbulb memories (participants also got to pick a story and “rehearse” with the police interrogations).

Question 7

Lost again (Loftus and Pickrell)

Answer 7

A: Investigate whether it is possible to plant false memories
M: Questionnaire and interview // lost in the mall technique
P: Participants were told 4 stories from their childhood, one of which was false, after which they had to fill in details for each event. A week later, they were called in for an interview and were asked to recall as much as they possibly could as well as rate the clarity of the memories and their level of confidence that they could remember more for the next interview. They were then called in for a second interview; same shizzle. They were then debriefed.
R: Subjects remember 68% percent of the true memories and 29 members remembered the false event either partially or fully. The mean word length of the description of true events were nearly three times as long as the words used for the false memories. The clarity for false events was lower than for true events. Over time, participants’ confidence that the false memories actually occurred increased.
C: By having been suggested cues, people can be led to believe that entire events that have never taken place occurred.
E: Problems with deception. Mingling with people’s childhood memories; delusion; create problems with self-confidence among participants. Hard to control 100%: the false memory (lost in the mall) is generic and participants might have mixed up memories.