Experimental and Meta-analytic Evidence That Source Variability of Misinformation Does Not Increase Eyewitness Suggestibility Independently of Repetition of Misinformation

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2023 Sep 11

PMID 37691811

Authors

Rachel ODonnell

Jason C K Chan

Jeffrey L Foster

Maryanne Garry

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Considerable evidence has shown that repeating the same misinformation increases its influence (i.e., repetition effects). However, very little research has examined whether having multiple witnesses present misinformation relative to one witness (i.e., source variability) increases the influence of misinformation. In two experiments, we orthogonally manipulated repetition and source variability. Experiment 1 used written interview transcripts to deliver misinformation and showed that repetition increased eyewitness suggestibility, but source variability did not. In Experiment 2, we increased source saliency by delivering the misinformation to participants via videos instead of written interviews, such that each witness was visibly and audibly distinct. Despite this stronger manipulation, there was no effect of source variability in Experiment 2. In addition, we reported a meta-analysis ( = 19) for the repeated misinformation effect and a small-scale meta-analysis ( = 8) for the source variability effect. Results from these meta-analyses were consistent with the results of our individual experiments. Altogether, our results suggest that participants respond based on retrieval fluency rather than source-specifying information.

References

Ecker U, Lewandowsky S, Chadwick M . Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020; 5(1):41. PMC: 7447737. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-020-00241-6. View

Park S, Goiame S, OConnor D, Dreher J . Integration of individual and social information for decision-making in groups of different sizes. PLoS Biol. 2017; 15(6):e2001958. PMC: 5489145. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001958. View

Ost J, Ghonouie H, Cook L, Vrij A . The effects of confederate influence and confidence on the accuracy of crime judgements. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2007; 128(1):25-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.007. View

Shaw J, Bjork R, Handal A . Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness-memory paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 2(2):249-53. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210965. View

Reysen M . The effects of social pressure on false memories. Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(1):59-65. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195942. View

Weaver K, Garcia S, Schwarz N, Miller D . Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: a repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007; 92(5):821-33. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.821. View

Cepeda N, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted J, Rohrer D . Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychol Bull. 2006; 132(3):354-80. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354. View

Hauer B, Wessel I, Merckelbach H, Roefs A, Dalgleish T . Effects of repeated retrieval of central and peripheral details in complex emotional slides. Memory. 2007; 15(4):435-49. DOI: 10.1080/09658210701312085. View

Henkel L . The benefits and costs of repeated memory tests for young and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2007; 22(3):580-95. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.22.3.580. View

10.

Foster J, Huthwaite T, Yesberg J, Garry M, Loftus E . Repetition, not number of sources, increases both susceptibility to misinformation and confidence in the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012; 139(2):320-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.004. View

11.

Ecker U, Lewandowsky S, Swire B, Chang D . Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011; 18(3):570-8. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1. View

12.

Dechene A, Stahl C, Hansen J, Wanke M . The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2009; 14(2):238-57. DOI: 10.1177/1088868309352251. View

13.

Jack F, Zydervelt S, Zajac R . Are co-witnesses special? Comparing the influence of co-witness and interviewer misinformation on eyewitness reports. Memory. 2013; 22(3):243-55. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2013.778291. View

14.

Roediger 3rd H, Geraci L . Aging and the misinformation effect: a neuropsychological analysis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(2):321-34. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.321. View

15.

Hassan A, Barber S . The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2021; 6(1):38. PMC: 8116821. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5. View

16.

Garry M, Manning C, Loftus E, Sherman S . Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 3(2):208-14. DOI: 10.3758/BF03212420. View

17.

Bright-Paul A, Jarrold C . Children's eyewitness memory: repeating post-event misinformation reduces the distinctiveness of a witnessed event. Memory. 2012; 20(8):818-35. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2012.708345. View

18.

Chan J, Langley M . Paradoxical effects of testing: retrieval enhances both accurate recall and suggestibility in eyewitnesses. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 37(1):248-55. DOI: 10.1037/a0021204. View

19.

Chan J, ODonnell R, Manley K . Warning weakens retrieval-enhanced suggestibility only when it is given shortly after misinformation: The critical importance of timing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2022; 28(4):694-716. DOI: 10.1037/xap0000394. View

20.

Wixted J, Mickes L, Fisher R . Rethinking the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018; 13(3):324-335. DOI: 10.1177/1745691617734878. View