PSY 492 M2_A3

Literature Review

In an article written by Eakin et al. in 2003 five studies were conducted to test the theory of the misinformation effect. They hypothesized that exposure to misleading information can significantly hamper one’s ability to report accurate information. They used modified opposition tests to test their participant’s memory. The participants were randomly assigned to the different experimental conditions and tested in small groups. “Different materials were developed for each of the experimental phases including the event slides, the postevent narrative, and the MOT” (Eakin et al., 2003). These experiments helped test how misleading information received postevent affects people’s memory. The tests were intended to separate retrieval-blocking effects. Retrieval blocking revolves around cue incrementing. Through their studies they found that people who had been exposed to misleading information were more likely to recall the misled information than accurate information. They found that this is true even when participants are given extensive warnings that the information they received may be misleading. They also determined in their study that receiving the warning immediately after encoding the information reduces the recall rate of misleading information. Through the studies they helped to prove that their hypothesis was true, that exposure to misleading information can hamper one’s ability to recall accurate information. These studies however do not study how suppression of memories my come into play. It also does not depict how long after one experiences an event may retrieval blocking pose a problem. This opens up the possibility that maybe we block information for a certain period of time and/or present misled information, then the accurate information may come to light at a later date.

Loftus may be considered one of the first explorers of the misinformation effect. In 2005 she wrote an article summing up her studies on this event. According to Loftus, 2005 “the misinformation effect has been observed in a variety of human and nonhuman species. And some groups of individuals are more susceptible than others.” She depicted that in certain conditions such as having a large amount of time between the event and questioning, may allow for a greater misinformation effect. Also with time she presents the facts that memory fades. With these two issues it Loftus presents the idea that one my rethink the event and place the misled information in due to weak memory of the event.

Like the Eakin et al. article Loftus also presented the position of offering a warning. She also concluded that offering a warning that misinformation may be presented helped to curb the effect but giving the warning after the information was received had little effect on the results. This helps contribute to the idea that after the misinformation has already been processed there is little one can do to reduce the recall effects. Loftus also adds in her article that age plays a large role in the misinformation effect. She presents that younger children and elderly adults are more susceptible. She presents two studies which back up her statements. She also presents a study in which empathy, absorption, and self-monitoring personality traits are more susceptible to the misinformation effect.

In Rivardo et al.’s studies were conducted to test whether co-witness discussion can lead to misinformation effects and if collaborative recall can reduce susceptibility to misinformation. They tested participants after viewing a video clip and then by an email questionnaire one week later. They tested 164 college students using a video clip of a car accident and subsequent car-pedestrian accident. Participants were randomly assigned to perform alone or collaborate with another participant and to receive either the accurate or an inaccurate narrative. “Two thirds of the participants who completed the initial video questionnaire individually were later randomly assigned to be part of a collaborative pair for the purposes of data analysis” (Rivardo et al., 2013). In their results they determined participants were more likely to report misinformation if they had been exposed to the inaccurate narrative. They concluded “individuals (47%) and collaborative pairs (67%) who read the inaccurate narrative reported at least one piece of misinformation” (Rivardo et al., 2013). They found that collaborative recall does not reduce misinformation. They also determined that misinformation was still presented at the week follow up but it could not be clearly determined if it was due to misinformation or normal memory decay. Rivardo et al.’s studies still prove that introducing one to misinformation whether individually or collaboratively will still present a misinformation effect.

In their article Valentine and Maras explain how cross examination contributes to the misinformation effect. Like Loftus mentioned in her studies they focus on questioning and suggestibility. They throw in the idea that implementing leading questions can cause one to present false information. The article depicts several different strategies such as not allowing witnesses to explain answers, wording questions in a way that forces a wanted answer, or throwing a barrage of questions at once. As Valentine and Maras admitted in their article there is not a lot of substantial research that studies the effects of cross-examination. They conducted an experiment to test how using these leading questions and different word plays affects ones memories. Like the other experiments they had “twenty-two student witnesses watched a video of a staged theft, either in pairs, or individually. Paired witnesses discussed the video with their cowitnesses but did not know they had seen slightly different versions” (Valentine & Maras, 2011).

The researchers had their participants complete a free recall questionnaire about the clip. After approximately 4 weeks all participants were ross-examined by a trainee barrister. When placed on the stand and questioned about the event the researchers were able to get 73 percent of the participants to change their answers using cross examination techniques such as leading questions. Witnesses in both conditions made many changes to their previous reports by altering both initially correct and incorrect answers. This is relevant because it shows us that leading questions can cause a change in answers. This makes eyewitness testimony malleable and less reliable. They also concluded that a more harsh cross examination had a greater effect on the results. This study and ones like it have led to boundaries in the courtroom to prevent leading questions from prosecutors and attorneys.

Zaragoza, Belli & Payment explored how suggestive forensic interview practices are a major cause of inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony. They proposed the finding that exposure to misleading postevent information can lead eyewitnesses to report items and events they never actually saw. They too concluded that the wording of questions could elicit different answer. They determined that using key words such as bumped instead of hit can cause one to choose different answers. Their studies also concluded that “misinformation was more likely to influence later testimony when the false information appeared as a presupposition, rather than the direct focus of the question” (Zaragoaza, Belli & Payment, 2006). In their article they also presented the confabulate effect or making false memories. This is stronger than receiving misinformation it is placing false thoughts into someone’s mind. They explain these false thoughts can be pushed upon someone so as they have no way to not admit them. These techniques are used in interviews in many circumstances to elicit false confessions. Studies have shown that coerced confessions increase the conviction rate even when participants recognize they are coerced. This is true when the confession is stricken from the record, and even when jurors claim it had no influence on their verdict. In their article they outline a study completed by Kassin & Kiechel in 1996 in which demonstrated that false incriminating evidence can lead people to believe—and even remember—that they committed a crime they did not commit. Zaragoaza, Belli & Payment’s article demonstrated many studies on memory and the misinformation effect as well as coercion. Their conclusions extend studies of misinformation phenomena by showing that people can be misled about their own actions, not just events they have observed. “Moreover, like the forced-confabulation studies, these studies show that coercing witnesses to say things against their will can seriously distort their memories over the long term” (Zaragoaza, Belli & Payment), 2006).

In 2002 110 people, 11 of whom had been on death row, were released from prison due to being exonerated by new DNA evidence. These people were convicted largely based on eyewitness testimony. The previous articles help us to understand more of what the misinformation effect is, in an article by the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, 2014 depicts 46 cases in which the effects of misinformation had an effect in the courtroom and in people’s lives. Bloodsworth, Kirk (convicted 1984, exonerated 1993) was convicted of rape and murder and sentenced to death solely on the eyewitness testimony and leading questions in his interview. He was identified from a sketch that was made from the recollection of five eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses were mistaken and DNA evidence excluded Bloodworth as a suspect in 1992. He became the first person to be exonerated from death row and received a pardon from the governor of Maryland.

Eddie Joe Lloyd in 1984 was convicted of killing a 16 year-old girl. Lloyd who was mentally ill wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve crimes and they brought him in. After being fed details of the crime in several interviews with police they convinced him that by confessing he would “smoke out” the real murder. They in turn got him to sign a confession and record a statement. He was sentenced to life in prison due to Michigan not having the death penalty. After serving 17 years in prison he was exonerated when DNA testing was done in his case. Michigan now has a law that interviews would be videotaped in offenses that carry a life sentence.

While there is still much study needed in the area of the misinformation effect it is clear that it exists. Through the many studies conducted and presented throughout the years we can see that if presented with misled information one is likely to repeat it instead of the accurate information. There is still much to discover in terms of how we store and retrieve memory which makes understanding the misinformation effect more difficult. Loftus examined how different groups of people may be affected by this phenomenon more than others. Through the studies of Valentine and Maras we can see that misleading information can have drastic effects and all the studies show it can come in many forms. Zaragoza, Belli, & Payment demonstrated in their article that the misinformation effect does exist and also presented a more sinister effect of confabulation. All of these articles helped to provide studies and results that indicate that under many different trials and circumstances that the exposure to misinformation can have an effect on eyewitness memory and testimony.