Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M S Zaragoza

Publications and source records attributed to M S Zaragoza.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Interviewing witnesses: forced confabulation and confirmatory feedback increase false memories.

In two experiments, adults who witnessed a videotaped event subsequently engaged in face-to-face interviews during which they were forced to confabulate information about the events they had seen. The interviewer selectively reinforced some of the participants' confabulated responses by providing confirmatory feedback (e.g., "Yes, ______ is the correct answer") and provided neutral (uninformative) feedback for the remaining confabulated responses (e.g., "O.K_____". One week later participants developed false memories for the events they had earlier confabulated knowingly. However confirmatory feedback increased false memory for forcibly confabulated events, increased confidence in those false memories, and increased the likelihood that participants wouldfreely report the confabulated events 1 to 2 months later The results illustrate the powerful role of social-motivational factors in promoting the development offalse memories.

Deception↗
PubMed2001

Contextual overlap and eyewitness suggestibility.

Studies of eyewitness suggestibility have traditionally used a paradigm that maximizes the extent to which the postevent interview overlaps with the witnessed event in terms of narrative content, narrative structure, and environmental context. The present study explored whether these dimensions of overlap contribute to people's tendency to confuse suggested details for those they have actually witnessed. We systematically manipulated the extent to which the postevent questionnaire overlapped with the witnessed event. Across two experiments, overlap in narrative content, narrative structure, or environmental context was not found to increase suggestibility effects, even though the manipulation did have other memory effects (e.g., it improved cued recall of the actual source of the suggestions, Experiment 2). These findings suggest that understanding the interaction between the structure and content of the objective context in which misinformation is encountered and various remembering contexts (e.g., recognition vs. recall) is important for advancing our understanding of source confusion in an eyewitness situation.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: evidence from source identification tests.

Previous studies have shown that source identification (ID) tests reduce, and in some cases eliminate, eyewitness suggestibility errors. The present study showed that the suggestibility errors participants committed on a source ID test were further reduced when they were given the explicit postwarning that the experimenter was trying to trick them. These postwarnings reduced suggestibility to the same extent as prewarnings, and they did so for both once and repeatedly suggested items. In addition, the benefits of the pre- and postwarnings persisted when participants were retested 1 week later, but only if the suggestions had been repeated. For once-suggested items, the warning had the unintended effect of improving old/new recognition of the suggested information at retest, an effect that offset the improvements in source discrimination accuracy conferred by the warning. The advantages of using source ID tests for investigating group differences in eyewitness suggestibility are discussed.

Cognition↗
PubMed1998

Memorial consequences of forced confabulation: age differences in susceptibility to false memories.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that exposure to misinformation about a witnessed event can lead to false memories in both children and adults. The present study extends this finding by identifying forced confabulation as another potent suggestive influence. Participants from 3 age groups (1st grade, 3rd/4th grade, and college age) viewed a clip from a movie and were "forced" to answer questions about events that clearly never happened in the video they had seen. Despite evidence that participants would not have answered these questions had they not been coerced into doing so, 1 week later participants in all age groups came to have false memories for the details they had knowingly fabricated earlier. The results also showed that children were more prone to this memory error than were adults.

Age Factors↗
PubMed1995

Developmental differences in eyewitness suggestibility and memory for source.

To what extent do children who report suggested information believe they actually remember seeing the suggested details they report? Asking whether children misremember seeing suggested items is in essence a question about children's ability to monitor the source of their memories. The current study reports the results of two experiments designed to assess potential age-related changes in subjects' ability to accurately monitor the source of suggested information either immediately or following a 1-week delay. The results of both experiments revealed that although all subjects claimed to remember seeing suggested items, the magnitude of this effect varied with age such that first-graders made more source confusions than third- and fifth-graders, who in turn made more confusions than college subjects. Our findings suggest that these age differences are not simply a function of more general age-related memory or performance deficits, but instead reflect developmental differences in the tendency to confuse suggested information for actually witnessed events.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

The recollective experience of cross-modality confusion errors.

There are at least two qualitatively different types of subjective experience that can accompany accurate recognition memory. Sometimes recognition is accompanied by conscious recollection of the learning episode (i.e., it is remembered), and in other cases it is not (i.e., it is simply known that the item is old). In the present study, we assessed the subjective experience that accompanies cross-modality confusion errors (misidentifying words as pictures) by measuring the extent to which subjects claimed to remember versus know that the item was presented as a picture. The results of two experiments demonstrate that cross-modality confusion errors are often accompanied by conscious recollection, although not to the same extent as accurate memories. The findings also show that there is considerable overlap in the recollective experience that accompanies accurate and erroneous memories. Finally, the results support the contention that recollective experience cannot be directly inferred from test performance.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory.

Although the suggestibility of eyewitness memory is well documented, previous studies have not clearly established the extent to which misled Ss might come to believe they actually remember seeing the suggested details they report. To assess whether Ss confuse misleading suggestions for their "real memories" of a witnessed event, Ss were asked specific questions about their memory for the source of suggested items. The results of 5 experiments showed that misled Ss do sometimes come to believe they remember seeing items that were merely suggested to them, a phenomenon we refer to as the source misattribution effect. Nevertheless, the results also showed that the magnitude of this effect varies and that source misattributions are not an inevitable consequence of exposure to suggestions.

Humans↗
PubMed1989

Misled subjects may know more than their performance implies.

Many studies have demonstrated that subjects exposed to misleading postevent information are likely to report the misinformation with confidence on subsequent tests of memory for the event. The purpose of the present studies was to determine whether subjects exposed to misleading postevent information come to believe they remember seeing the misinformation at the original event. A second question addressed by the present studies is whether exposure to misinformation reduces subjects' ability to remember the source of items they witnessed at the original event. In two experiments, subjects viewed a slide sequence depicting an event, were subsequently exposed to misleading information or neutral information about selected aspects of the event, and were later tested on their memory for the source of original and misleading details. The results showed that exposure to misinformation did not lead subjects to believe they remembered seeing the misinformation, nor did it reduce subjects' ability to accurately identify the source of originally seen details. The same pattern of results was obtained whether subjects were tested immediately (Experiment 1) or after a 1-day delay (Experiment 2). Collectively, the results suggest that subjects may report misinformation even if they know they do not remember seeing it.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Similarity of encoding context does not influence resistance to memory impairment following misinformation.

Several recent studies have shown that exposure to verbal misleading post-event information does not impair subjects' ability to retrieve originally seen details. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that subjects would be more susceptible to memory impairment if the original and misleading information were presented in similar contextual formats. The results showed that misleading information did not lead to memory impairment when both original and misleading information were presented in the context of slides (Experiment 1) or when both original and misleading information were presented in the context of narratives (Experiment 2). Furthermore, resistance to memory impairment was observed both at relatively low levels of memory for the original information (Experiment 1) and at relatively high levels of memory for the original information (Experiment 2). The implications of the present results for interference principles of forgetting are discussed.

Cues↗