Acceptance and Confidence of Central and Peripheral Misinformation

  1. Luna, Karlos 1
  2. Migueles Seco, Malen 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Journal:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Year of publication: 2009

Volume: 12

Issue: 2

Pages: 405-413

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1017/S1138741600001797 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

We examined the memory for central and peripheral information concerning a crime and the acceptance of false information. We also studied eyewitnesses' confidence in their memory. Participants were shown a video depicting a bank robbery and a questionnaire was used to introduce false central and peripheral information. The next day the participants completed a recognition task in which they rated the confidence of their responses. Performance was better for central information and participants registered more false alarms for peripheral contents. The cognitive system's limited attentional capacity and the greater information capacity of central elements may facilitate processing the more important information. The presentation of misinformation seriously impaired eyewitness memory by prompting a more lenient response criterion. Participants were more confident with central than with peripheral information. Eyewitness memory is easily distorted in peripheral aspects but it is more difficult to make mistakes with central information. However, when false information is introduced, errors in central information can be accompanied by high confidence, thus rendering them credible and legally serious.

Bibliographic References

  • Ackil, J.K., & Zaragoza, M.S. (1995). Developmental differences in eyewitness suggestibility and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 57–83.
  • Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171–1192.
  • Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669–679.
  • Brown, J.M. (2003). Eyewitness memory for arousing events: Putting things into context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 93–106.
  • Burke, A., Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1992). Remembering emotional events. Memory and Cognition, 20, 277–290.
  • Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., & Toglia, M.P. (1987). Suggestibility of children's memory: Psycholegal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 38–49.
  • Christianson, S.-A. (1992a). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284–309.
  • Christianson, S.-A. (1992b). Remembering emotional events: Potential mechanism. In Christianson, S. A. (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 307–340). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  • Christianson, S.-A., & Hübinette, B. (1993). Hands up! A study of witnesses' emotional reactions and memories associated with bank robberies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 365–379.
  • Christianson, S.-A., & Loftus, E.F. (1990). Some characteristics of people's traumatic memories. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 195–198.
  • Christianson, S.-A., & Loftus, E.F. (1991). Remembering emotional events: The fate of detailed information. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 81–108.
  • Dalton, A.L., & Daneman, M. (2006). Social suggestibility to central and peripheral misinformation. Memory, 14, 486–501.
  • Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 275–277.
  • Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 163–201.
  • Fisher, R.P., & Geiselman, R.E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.
  • Gobbo, C. (2000). Assessing the effects of misinformation on children's recall: how and when makes the difference. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 163–182.3.0.CO;2-H>
  • Heath, W.P., & Erickson, J.R. (1998). Memory for peripheral actions and props after varied post-event presentation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 321–346.
  • Hekkanen, S.T., & McEvoy, C. (2002). False memories and sourcemonitoring problems: Criterion differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 73–85.
  • Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1990). Vivid memories of emotional events: The accuracy of remembered minutiae. Memory and Cognition, 18, 496–506.
  • Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1992). Emotion, arousal, and memory for details. In Christianson, S.-A. (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 151–180). Hillsdale: LEA.
  • Ibabe, I., & Sporer, S.L. (2004). How you ask is what you get: On the influence of question form on accuracy and confidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 711–726.
  • Krug, K. (2007). The relationship between confidence and accuracy: Current thoughts of the literature and a new area of research. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3, 7–41.
  • Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 17, 349–358.
  • Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.G., & Burns, H.J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31.
  • Loftus, E.F., Donders, K., Hoffman, H.G. y Schooler, J.W. (1989). Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held. Memory and Cognition, 17, 607–616.
  • Luna, K., & Migueles, M. (2005). Efecto del tipo de información sugerida en el paradigma de la información postevento. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 58, 309–321.
  • Luna, K., & Migueles, M. (2006). Revisión cualitativa del tipo de elemento sugerido en el paradigma de la información postevento. In Contreras, M. J., Botella, J., Cabestrero, R. and Gil, B. (Eds.), Lecturas de Psicología Experimental (pp. 65–73). Madrid: UNED.
  • Luna, K. y Migueles, M. (2007). Acciones y detalles en la aceptación de información postevento falsa y en la confianza. Estudios de Psicología, 28, 69–81.
  • Migueles, M., & García-Bajos, E. (1999). Recall, recognition and confidence patterns in eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 257–268.3.0.CO;2-7>
  • Roebers, C.M., & Schneider, W. (2000). The impact of misleading questions on eyewitness memory in children and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 509–526.3.0.CO;2-W>
  • Snodgrass, J.G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
  • Sutherland, R., & Hayne, H. (2001). The effect of postevent information on adults' eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 249–263.
  • Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T.J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.
  • Wessel, I., & Merckelbach, H. (1994). Characteristics of traumatic memories in normal subjects. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22, 315–324.
  • Wise, R.A., & Safer, M.A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427–443.
  • Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (1998). Memory quality and misinformation for peripheral and central objects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 273–286.
Data source: Dialnet