1 / 18

Fiona Gabbert, Amina Memon & Daniel B. Wright

Manipulating witnesses’ confidence in memory: Implications for memory conformity. Fiona Gabbert, Amina Memon & Daniel B. Wright. Previous research. Archival data shows crimes often have more than one witness ( Valentine et al., 2003; Wright & McDaid, 1996 )

kendall-jefferson
Download Presentation

Fiona Gabbert, Amina Memon & Daniel B. Wright

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Manipulating witnesses’ confidence in memory: Implications for memory conformity Fiona Gabbert, Amina Memon & Daniel B. Wright

  2. Previous research Archival data shows crimes often have more than one witness (Valentine et al., 2003; Wright & McDaid, 1996) Where multiple witness are present, co-witness discussion is common (Paterson & Kemp, in press) Challenge for researchers – to maximise ecological validity under controlled conditions Typical finding = people’s memory reports become similar to one another’s following a discussion (Gabbert et al. 2003, 2004; Mori et al., 2003, 2004; Wright et al. 2000)

  3. Does perceived memory quality influence susceptibility to memory conformity? Current research Experimental manipulation Perceived encoding duration between dyad members is manipulated whilst actual encoding duration is held constant

  4. Method Design: Between subjects design with 2 conditions (perceived encoding time; ½ vs. x2) Participants: 88 (Mean age = 20 years) tested in dyads Encoding material: 4 pictures of different scenes; 2 versions of each picture, each with 2 contrasting critical items - So, 8 critical items in total

  5. Procedure DV = the amount of misinformation errantly reported at test

  6. All co-witness discussions were transcribed The transcriptions were coded to record which critical items were mentioned by each dyad member The free recall scripts were coded for the number of 1) correct/errant neutral details from the pictures 2) correct/errant critical items Coding

  7. Question 1 Is there a difference in memory performance between conditions (half vs. twice perceived encoding duration) ? Results

  8. Memory ability for neutral items Number of accurate neutral items recalled (SD in parentheses) No main effects

  9. Question 2 Is there a relationship between perceived memory quality and memory conformity? Results

  10. Effects of perceived memory quality Average number of critical items reported in each condition * * * p<0.05

  11. Question 3 Is there a relationship between objective memory performance and memory conformity? Results

  12. Susceptibility to co-witness influence was not related to memory for the pictures: Influenced: 61.5 (SD = 18.1) accurate items Not influenced: 66.1 (SD = 19.5) accurate items Correlation between number of accurate items of neutral information reported and number of errant co-witness details reported: r = .04, ns. Actual memory ability & memory conformity

  13. Why does perceived memory quality mediate memory conformity? It is possible that the feedback influences confidence in one’s memory (e.g., Wells & Bradfield, 1998) This could affect metacognitive judgements about memory validity (e.g., Koriat & Levy-Sadot, 1999; 2000) Discussion

  14. Email me at f.gabbert@abdn.ac.uk For a copy of the accompanying paper For a copy of the stimuli used With any q’s or comments about co-witness research thanks

  15. Source judgements attributed to errant critical items reported at test

More Related