Lecture 23 - Recovered and False Memories Flashcards
general memory definition
when we encode memories we’re using top down and bottom up memory
recall is a reconstruction using LTGM
the misinformation effect
you witness one thing, but then you’re given a competing account
so you have these two memories and have difficulty finding a difference between the two
Loftus, Burns & Miller (1978)
We’ve seen how eyewitness testimony
can be affected by misinformation.
Wells & Bradfield (1998) also showed
how it can be impacted by feedback.
=> you have an account, you recall something, and someone tells you “no you’re wrong” or “good job”
- Subjects watched a video of an actual crime.
- They pick out a suspect from a set of photos, though the actual criminal is not present.
• Feedback given is either confirming (“good”, “ok”) or disconfirming (“no, you’re wrong”) or they could receive no feedback.
=> but they couldn’t get it right because the criminal was never shown
- Subjects had higher confidence in their choice if given confirming feedback.
- This is the post identification feedback effect.
post identification feedback effect.
if you’re told “good job” you feel like you got it
you’re given info that changes your confidence in how you remember something
Flashbulb memories for emotional events
where something major happens (emotional) and your memories for it are super vivid
but how accurate are those memories?
source monitoring error
in which a recent or familiar person is recalled in place of the actual suspect
An eyewitness can sometimes misidentify a suspect based on familiarity alone
you have two memories and you’re trying to pick which one is the correct one
=> you have competing memories for other people that look familiar to you
two real memories to chose between, so you pick familiar one
An eyewitness can sometimes misidentify a suspect based on familiarity.
(Ross et al., 1994).
• Participants watched a video with a female or male teacher. They then saw a video where the female teacher is robbed. They are asked to identify the robber.
• If the robber was not in the photos, the male teacher was misidentified 60% of the time. If the robber was present, the male teacher was misidentified 18% of the time
=> couldn’t find the robber so they went to what was recently in memory
• This familiarity effect is a source monitoring error.
All episodic memory is fallible (obviously). However, eyewitness testimony can be especially problematic in a number of instances.
• It is affected by misinformation.
=> people try and confuse you doing interrogation to affect memory of suspect or possible witness
• Confidence can be manipulated with feedback.
=> witness will feel good about their choice if given positive feedback
• Emotional events may decrease attention and encoding of detail.
=> can’t take advantage of schemas or top-down info
• Source monitoring errors allow familiar information to interfere with events.
=> you’re misremembering by picking out something from another time
You have witnessed a crime in which a thief loudly smashes a window before grabbing something and running away. A week later, the police ask you to come in and try to identify the suspect. You are hazy on the details, but the officer encourages you to do your best. In this instance, your memory may be influenced most by:
Attention and encoding interference.
=> the thief causes some big emotional thing that draws your attention
You have an argument with your significant other over accusations of infidelity. There is some yelling and both of you leave very upset.
You later tell your friend what happened. The friend says they have
heard ‘rumors’ of your S.O. cheating and agrees with your version
of events. You believe that you have probably heard the same
rumors.
A. Misinformation effect
=> rumors are likely to be wrong, getting different accounts
B. Post-identification feedback effect.
=> feedback from the friend
C. Attention and encoding interference.
=> emotion: yelling and shouting
flashbulb memories
Some memories for extreme events seem special. When you experience a highly-emotionally charged, unique episode, you may feel that the memories are indelibly stamped in your mind.
The tem flashbulb memory was coined by Brown and Kulik in
1977 to describe your memory for…
….where you where and what you were doing when…
• Going on a first date, getting into college, graduation, etc.
• 9/11/01, Challenger explosion, Kennedy assassination, etc.
=> All of the memories are vivid, highly emotional, and tend to be very detailed. They are remembered with great confidence.
Brown and Kulik (1977) asked 80 people where they were and what they were doing
when they heard about the Kennedy assassination in 1963.
• All but one person had a memory of hearing about the assassination.
• Brown & Kulik argued that a distinct biological mechanism exists for highly surprising and consequential events.
=> separate memory system
• This would give an evolutionary advantage
as these events would be remembered and avoided by those who survive.
• The more detail you accurately remember,
the better your survival chances
Neisser & Harsch (1992) examined the
accuracy of flashbulb memories following
the Challenger disaster in 1986.
• The morning after, they gave college undergrads a questionnaire asking
how they had heard about the accident.
- Asked for explicit detail: who told you, where were you, doing what, etc.
- 2.5 years later, they asked the same people what had happened.
• This is a procedure known as repeated
recall.
• The later reports were compared with the original baseline details.
Neisser & Harsch (1992) found that:
• Only 25% remembered the original questionnaire after 2.5 years.
• Only 3 out of 44 people’s 2nd account matched their original
questionnaire responses.
• Only 50% got one or two important details (e.g. where they heard about it), correct.
• Interestingly, the 13 people with the highest confidence were only
average in the accuracy.
• Perhaps what is “special” about flashbulb memories is the degree
of confidence they give a person for their memories?
=> they could check up on it and it was against the same person’s account !!
