Psych 51 - Midterm 2 - False Memory
annire's 2015-11-05 07:30
memories are reconstructions. and so never exact
3/4 of exonerated are because the eyewitness was WRONG!
Loftus, the wording of a question can affect the later recall of the incident
examples of wording frequently/occasionally. a/ the. collided/smashed
with a false presupposition can affect a witness's answer to a subsequent question about that quantitative fact
is the effect due to the wording, or because of the appearance of a word found that false presuppositions are stronger in creating errors later, than when asked a question directly. but asking any detailed question increases the likelihood later recall thinks it exists
misinformation effect inaccuracy in memory caused by erroneous info provided after an event
question asked in a complex way... recall is less accurate and less confident
can you implant an entirely false memory? your parents told us about these events... presented as if they happened by a reliable source. asked if they remembered this occurring. if so, elaborate.
results of "lost in the mall" people may elaborate on the event that never happened. and provide DETAILS. (minority of people, but significant)
clarity? lower when false.
tried with more extreme/less common as to not blur things that probably occurred with this false story (things that slightly happened) 1/3 drowning, 1/2 vicious animal attack. WITNESSED DEMONIC POSSESioN??? some did ..?
tried with an event that may have occured, but a detail that would have been obviously false (Bugs bunny is not disney) the more exposure to the fake ad that mentioned bugs bunny, more likely to mention him when "recalling a past event WITH DETAIL
sometimes, can't tell real or fake just by details or confidence. they will provide just as much details and be confident about answer!
overall, this is all evidence that details can be altered, distorted, or implanted.
why does this happen? model our memories are the result of original experience AND recent recollection such that the event surrounding recollection can become incorporated into original memory.
implicit memory. (OUTSIDE of awareness) there's a LOT of it if we forget the source, or who/why. we may generate PLAUSIBLE but INCORRECT sources to try and make sense of why a particular idea pops into mind, or why we feel a certain way
overall, once you get to a courtroom, everything asked by police lawers experience has been contaminated
the recollection inside your head is a combination of ALL of those experiences (lawyers, police, basically anything related to the event)
your memory is a PRODUCT of your brain and thoughts
how can we limit this contamination? how can we distinguish between original and what has been added? keep the memory pure open-ended questions? (but a study i read also said that open ended. could make someone create a memory about it, even if it's false. and the amount of details may correlate with how much they believe in it or how much they "remember"
explicit memory conscious of what we are doing with that info.
source amnesia she sees him, and says she's seen him before. because the 1st time ever was the photo lineup.
when the perp is NOT in the lineup it's hard for people to tell. infer that it is there. chosen for a reason right? spend effort to try and figure it out
overall, eyewitnesses are bad because they are persuasive AND untrustworthy
although they are ___ mistaken genuinely.
How to improve photo lineups 1 at a time. compare to memory.
recognition memory is effortless. feeling of familiarity.
if takes a long time suggests they don't really recognize
when investigators are involved, they have knowledge and it is communicated to the witness
confirmation makes confidence MUCH higher. the confidence comes from the INVESTIGATOR though, and not the memory
Pages linking here
(main versions and versions by same user)