Eyewitness suggestibility and source similarity: Intrusions of details from one event into memory reports of another event

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 96-111

  Lindsay, D Stephen ^a   Allen, Bem P ^b   Chan, Jason C K ^c   Dahl, Leora C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness suggestibility; Memory; Misinformation effect; Source monitoring

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347031238     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abeles, P., & Morton, J. (1999). Avoiding misinformation: Reinstating target modality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 52a, 581-592.
2. Abra, J. C. (1972). List differentiation and forgetting. In C. P. Duncan, L. Sechrest, & A. W. Melton (Eds.), Human memory: Festschrift for Benton J. Underwood (pp. 25-57). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3. Allen, B. P. (1999). Shadows as sources of cues for distance of shadow casting objects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 571-584.
4. Allen, B. P., & Lindsay, D. S. (1998). Amalgamations of memories: Intrusion of information from one event into reports of another. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 277-285.
5. Birnbaum, M. H. (Ed.). (2000). Psychological experiments on the Internet. San Diego: Academic Press.
6. Bonto, M. A., & Payne, D. G. (1991). Role of environmental context in eyewitness memory. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 117-134.
7. Chambers, K. L., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2002). Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1120-1129.
8. Chandler, C. C., Gargano, G. J., & Holt, B. C. (2001). Witnessing postevents does not change memory traces, but can affect their retrieval. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 3-22.
9. Eberman, C., & McKelvie, S. J. (2002). Vividness of visual imagery and source memory for audio and text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 87-95.
10. Frost, P., Ingraham, M., & Wilson, B. (2002). Why misinformation is more likely to be recognized over time: A source monitoring account. Memory, 10, 179-185.
11. Hekkanen, S. T., & McEvoy, C. (2002). False memories and source-monitoring problems: Criterion differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 73-85.
12. Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2001). False recognition occurs more frequently during source identification than during old-new recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 375.
13. Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2000). Dissociating automatic and intentional processes in children's eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 1-42.
14. Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2001). Automatic and intentional processes in children's eyewitness suggestibility. Cognitive Development, 16, 617-636.
15. Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2002). Automatic and intentional processes in children's recognition memory: The reversed misinformation effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 1-16.
16. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989a). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 391-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. M. (1989b). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115-125.
18. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
19. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (2000). Cognitive and brain mechanisms of false memories and beliefs. In D. L. Schacter & E. Scarry (Eds.), Memory, brain, and belief (pp. 35-86). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Keppel, G., & Underwood, B. J. (1962). Retroactive inhibition of R-S associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 400-404.
21. Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses' ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1077-1083.
22. Lindsay, D. S., Gonzales, V., & Eso, K. (1995). Aware and unaware uses of memories of postevent suggestions. In M. S. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, J. E. Hirschman, & Y. S. Ben-Porath (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 86-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989a). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory & Cognition, 17, 349-358.
24. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989b). The reversed eyewitness suggestibility effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 111-113.
25. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (2001). False memories, fuzzy trace theory, and the source monitoring framework. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 145-161.
26. Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 297-318.
27. Lindsay, D. S., & Read, J. D. (2001). The recovered memories controversy: Where do we go from here?. In G. Davies & T. Dalgleish (Eds.), Recovered memories: Seeking the middle ground (pp. 71-94). London: Wiley.
28. 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.
29. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
30. Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Test formats change source-monitoring decision processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1137-1151.
31. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1-16.
32. McGeoch, J. A. (1936). Retroactive inhibition as a function of the relative amounts of original and interpolated materials. Psychological Bulletin, 33, 613-614.
33. McGeoch, J. A., & McGeoch, G. O. (1937). Studies in retroactive inhibition: X. The influence of similarity of meaning between lists of paired associates. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 320-329.
34. McGovern, J. B. (1964). Extinction of associations in four transfer paradigms. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78, 21.
35. McGraw, K.O., Tew, M. D., & Williams, J. E. (2000). The integrity of Web-delivered experiments: Can you trust the data? Psychological Science, 11, 502-506.
36. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254-278.
37. Mitchell, K. J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and false memory: The role of contextual variability. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 246-260.
38. Mitchell, K. J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2001). Contextual overlap and eyewitness suggestibility. Memory & Cognition, 29, 616-626.
39. Postman, L., & Stark, K. (1969). Role of response availability in transfer and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 168-177.
40. Roediger III, H. L., Jacoby, J. D., & McDermott, K. B. (1996). Misinformation effects in recall: Creating false memories through repeated retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 300-318.
41. Shaw III, J. S., Garcia, L. A., & Robles, B. E. (1997). Cross-language postevent misinformation effects in Spanish-English bilingual witnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 889-899.
42. Sloman, S. A., & Rips, L. J. (1998). Similarity as an explanatory construct. Cognition, 65, 87-101.
43. Spencer, R. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Context-dependent effects on analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 14, 442-449.
44. Toth, J. P. (2000). Nonconscious forms of human memory. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 245-261). London: Oxford University Press.
45. Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information. Memory & Cognition, 14, 329-338.
46. Vecera, S. P., Vogel, E. K., & Woodman, G. F. (2002). Lower region: A new cue for figure-ground assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 194.
47. Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie? Stimulus compatibility with comparison and integration. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208-238.
48. Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2003). On the construction of behavior and subjective experience: The production and evaluation of performance. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 239-260). London: Oxford University Press.
49. Zaragoza, M. S., & Koshmider, J. W. (1989). Misled subjects may know more than their performance implies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 246-255.
50. Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 934-945.