Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:28:41.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Younger Adults Can Be More Suggestible than Older Adults: The Influence of Learning Differences on Misinformation Reporting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Tammy A. Marche ,
Jason J. Jordan  and
Keith P. Owre
Tammy A. Marche*
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan*
Jason J. Jordan
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan*
Keith P. Owre
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan*
*
Requests etc.: Tammy A. Marche, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan, 1437 College Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0W6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the present investigation was to determine whether differences in the strength of original information influence adult age differences in susceptibility to misinformation. One-half of the younger and older adults watched a slide sequence once (one-trial learning) that depicted a theft, whereas the remaining participants viewed the slide sequence repeatedly to ensure that all critical details were encoded (criterion learning). Three weeks later and immediately prior to final testing, participants were asked questions that contained misleading information. As expected, the degree of initial learning influenced age differences in misinformation reporting. That is, when event memory was poorer for older than younger adults (in the criterion learning condition), older adults were more susceptible to misinformation than younger adults. However, when memory of the event was poor (in the one-trial learning condition), the younger adults reported more misled details than the older adults, possibly because the younger adults had better memory for the misleading information. Therefore, strength of initial memory influences the extent and direction of adult suggestibility and helps explain the discrepancy found across studies in this area.

Résumé

La présente enquête visait à déterminer si l'intensité de l'acquisition d'une information originale influe sur les possibilités de désinformation chez des adultes d'âges différents. La moitié des adultes plus jeunes et des adultes plus âgés ont visionné une seule fois (apprentissage non cumulatif) une série de diapositives qui portaient sur un vol, alors que les autres participants ont visionné le diaporama à plusieurs reprises pour faire en sorte que tous les éléments essentiels soient assimilés (apprentissage de contrôle). Trois semaines plus tard, soit immédiatement avant le test final, on a posé aux participants des questions qui contenaient des informations trompeuses. Comme on pouvait s'y attendre, l'intensité de l'acquisition des connaissances initiales a influé sur la déformation de l'information, en fonction des différences d'âge. Ce qui signifie que les adultes plus âgés se rappelaient moins des événements que les adultes plus jeunes (dans l'apprentissage de contrôle). Par ailleurs, lorsque la mémorisation des événements était minimale (conditions d'apprentissage non cumulatif), les adultes plus jeunes ont rapporté plus d'éléments erronés que les adultes plus âgés, sans doute parce que les adultes plus jeunes se souvenaient plus facilement des informations trompeuses. Par ailleurs, l'intensité de la mémorisation initiale influe sur l'étendue et l'orientation de la suggestibilité des adultes, ce qui explique les anomalies trouvées dans les études dans ce domaine.

Keywords

Misinformation EffectAdult DevelopmentAge DifferencesEffets de désinformationdéveloppement des adultesdifférences d'âges
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , Spring/Printemps 2002 , pp. 85 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*Preparation of this article and the research reported herein were partially funded by a Research Grant from St. Thomas More College to Tammy A. Marche. We would like to thank the reviewers of previous versions of this manuscript for their valuable comments and suggestions, and special thanks to all of the participants who made this research possible.

References

Adams-Price, C., & Perlmutter, M. (1992). Eyewitness memory and aging research: A case study in everyday memory. In West, R.L. & Sinnott, J.D. (Eds.), Everyday memory and aging (pp. 246–258). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belli, R.F., Windschitl, P.D., McCarthy, T.T., & Winfrey, S.E. (1992). Detecting memory impairment with a modified test procedure: Manipulating retention interval with centrally presented event items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 356–367.Google Scholar
Bornstein, B.H. (1995). Memory processes in the elderly eyewitness: What we know and what we don't know. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (1988). Memory loci of suggestibility development: Comment on Ceci, Ross, and Toglia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (1993). Domains of fuzzy-trace theory. In Howe, M.L., & R.Pasnak, (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development (Vol. 1) (pp. 50–94). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (1998). Fuzzy-trace theory and children's false memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 81–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, D., & Light, L. (1981). Memory and aging: The role of retrieval processes. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 513–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceci, S.J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child eyewitness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S.J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Ceci, S.J., Loftus, E.F., Leichtman, M.D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, XLII, 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D. (1989). Age differences in source forgetting: Effects on reality monitoring and on eyewitness testimony. Psychology and Aging, 4, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coxon, P., & Valentine, T. (1997). The effects of age of eyewitnesses on the accuracy and suggestibility of their testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 415–430.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doris, J. (1991). Suggestibility of children's recollections. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1985). Surface information loss in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 324–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashtroudi, S., Johnson, M.K., & Chrosniak, L.D. (1989). Aging and source monitoring. Psychology and Aging, 4, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe, M.L. (1991). Misleading children's story recall: Forgetting and reminiscence of the facts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 746–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, S.D. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitness' ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 1077–1083.Google Scholar
Lindsay, S.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 17, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, S.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1991). Recognition memory and source monitoring. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J.A. (1986). Age and schematic differences in the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Developmental Psychology, 22, 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E.F., Levidow, B., & Duensing, S. (1992). Who remember best? Individual differences in memory for events that occurred in a science museum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E., Miller, D. & Burns, H. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Marche, T.A. (1999). Memory strength affects reporting of misinformation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 45–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marche, T.A., & Howe, M.L. (1995). Preschoolers report misinformation despite accurate memory. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, J.S., & Craik, F.I. (1987). Age differences for item and source information. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S.A. (1998). Developmental research methods. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.L., & Shapiro, A.M. (1994). Forgetting of verbatim information in discourse. Memory & Cognition, 22, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pezdek, K., & Roe, C. (1995). The effect of memory trace strength on suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyna, V.F. (1992). Reasoning, remembering, and their relationship: Social, cognitive, and developmental issues. In Howe, M.L., Brainerd, C.J., & Reyna, V.F. (Eds.), Development of long-term retention (pp. 103–127). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyna, V.F., & Brainerd, C.J. (1991). A fuzzy-trace theory of reasoning and remembering: Patterns, paradoxes, and parallelism. In Healy, A.F., Shiffrin, R.M., & Kosslyn, S.K. (Eds.), Festschrift for W.K. Estes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reyna, V.F., & Brainerd, C.J. (1992). A fuzzy-trace theory of reasoning and remembering: patterns, paradoxes, and parallelism. In Healy, A.F., Kosslyn, S., & Shiffrin, R.M. (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes (pp. 235–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schacter, D.L., Kazniak, A.W., Kihlstrom, J.F., & Valdisseri, M. (1991). The relationship between source monitoring and aging. Psychology and Aging, 6, 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titcomb, A.L., & Reyna, V.F. (1995). Memory interference and misinformation effects. In Dempster, F.N., & Brainerd, C.J., (Eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition. Toronto: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Witzel, B.W. (1996). The misinformation effect from early to later adulthood. Unpublished honours thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
Yarmey, A.D. (1984). Accuracy and credibility of the elderly witness. Canadian Journal on Aging, 3, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarmey, A.D. & Kent, J. (1980). Eyewitness identification by elderly and young adults. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar