lecture 5- social influences on memory Flashcards
the social context of memories
Memories have personal and social significance.
Remembering is a social process, e.g., the cultural transmission of memories involves repeated retellings.
→ memories are subject to the same social pressures as
other behaviors, beliefs, or decisions.
→ memories can be constructed and reconstructed both
by the individual and by larger groups
terminology
memory conformity (e.g., Roediger et al., 2001)
social contagion of memory (e.g., Wright et al., 2000)
effects of co-witness information
the conformity effect
Study: view scenes (e.g., kitchen) with high-expectancy and low-expectancy objects for 15 sec or 60 sec.
Collaborative recall: joint memory task with a confederate who recalls studied items but also never-studied
high-expectancy and low-expectancy objects (“contagion” items)
(other intruding items are called “control” items here)
Final recall (individual testing):
Roediger, Meade, and Bergmann (2001)
More contagion for high-expectancy items, especially in the fast-study condition.
1. THE CONFORMITY EFFECT
the conformity effect cont
Exp3: same procedure with exposure to confederates’ written responses (i.e., by reading experimental protocols – 0, 1, or 4 of
these protocols included contagion items).
Test: initial recall test, contagion phase (participants were asked to compare their recall to that of other participants), final test.
More false contagion after reading four protocols.
I.e., increased exposure to misinformation → stronger effect.
Meade and Roediger (2002)
adding removing details
Wright et al. (2005)
Study: study HF/LF words (Exp1), pictures of cars (Exp2), pictures of faces (Exp3)
Tested with or without a confederate providing incorrect answers
Test results:
* Studied (old) items: weaker effect of confederates’ responses
* Unstudied (new) items: stronger effect of confederates’ responses
who do we tend to believe?
Credible sources produce a stronger misinformation effect (Davis & Loftus, 2007).
Factors influencing credibility and misinformation:
* role in the event (innocent by-stander vs. guilty party; Dodd & Bradshaw, 1980)
* identity/status/competence of the co-rememberer
* a partner vs. a stranger (French et al., 2008)
* a psychologist vs. a child (Underwood & Pezdek, 1998)
* a younger vs. old witness (Kwong See et al., 2001; Thorley, 2015)
* study time (Gabbert et al., 2007)
* confidence
confidence
We are more willing to believe reports from confident than less confident eye-witnesses (Bradfield & Wells, 2000; Brewer &
Burke, 2002; Sporer et al., 1994; Wright et al., 2000).
But confidence, like memory, is malleable – e.g., repeating something to yourself inflates confidence in one’s own memory with
no changes in accuracy!
Evidence of confidence malleability in mock police lineups (Luus & Wells, 1994):
* confidence inflation if a co-witness identifies the same suspect as you (or if the co-witness provides an improbable different
response).
* confidence deflation if a co-witness identifies a different suspect or no suspect.
collaborative inhibition
General method:
Study separately, then complete a memory test together
Typical result:
Collaborative inhibition or suboptimal group recall: on average, people show poorer memory in groups than when
tested individually (non-collaborating groups)
(Anderson & Ronnberg, 1996; Basden et al., 1997; Basden et al., 2000; Marion & Thorley, 2016; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997; Wright & Klumpp, 2004)
Study: items A, B, C, D, E, F
Sub1 recall: A, B, C
Sub2 recall: B, C, F
Sub3 recall: A, C, E, F → Nominal group recall (pooling all non-redundant items):
A, B, C, D, E, F (6 items)
→ Collaborative group recall: A, B, C, F (4 items)
collaborative inhibition cont
Weldon and Bellinger (1997) each individual remembers fewer items
than all individuals do together
but collaborative recall
is lower
Studying and recalling The War of the
Ghosts individually and in groups (Exp2)
Mechanisms:
Social loafing and diffusion of responsibility?
Retrieval disruption hypothesis (Basden et al., 1997)?
* Organization of stimuli (more inhibition when there are multiple retrieval strategies)
* Test type (more inhibition when the test relies on retrieval strategies)
* Group size (more inhibition in larger groups)
However, it’s not all bad news!
When individual recall follows collaborative recall, collaborative inhibition does not persist at the individual
level (Basden et al. 2000).
Expertise leads to collaborative facilitation, not collaborative inhibition (Meade et al., 2009).
Why? Retrieval strategies are not disrupted
collaboration and false memory
Do false memory rates increase or decrease in groups?
More memory distortions in groups (Basden et al., 2008):
* Method: study DRM lists separately, complete a perceived group recall (PGR) test after each list
or not, then complete an individual recall test
* Results (Exp1, immediate test):
* PGR with critical word mentioned: 79% intrusion rate
* PGR without critical word: 39% intrusion rate
* No PGR: 30% intrusion rate
→ False memories can be “transmitted”
social shared retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF)
Cuc et al. (2007): “silence is not golden”
Two people (“speaker” + “listener”) study new information.
The speaker engages in overt recall, but what about the listener?
Is the listener a “passive” addressee?
Does the listener also engage in covert recall?
Speaker recall: RIF effect (better memory for Rp+ items, poorer memory for Rp-)
→ individual retrieval-induced forgetting
Listener recall: also a RIF effect?
→ socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting?
cont SOCIALLY SHARED RIF
Cuc et al. (2007): “silence is not golden”
Method:
Study: Speaker and Listener encode information from:
Exp1: word pairs (animal-cat, animal-dog, vegetable-broccoli, vegetable-pea)
Exp2: story
Exp3: same story recalled jointly (i.e., in conversation)
Exp1 retrieval practice: Speaker completes cue-target pairs, while Listener monitors Speaker’s responses for accuracy
(accuracy condition) or fluency (superficial listening condition)
Exp2 and Exp3 retrieval practice: Speaker reports responses, while Listener monitors Speakers’ responses for accuracy
Test: compare Rp+, Rp-, Nrp.
summary
The costs and benefits of remembering together:
Conformity/contagion
What works? Repetition, manipulations of competence
Collaborative inhibition
How does group recall impair memory?
Socially-shared RIF
We remember what others remember, we forget what they forget.
