Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:58:50.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acceptance and Confidence of Central and Peripheral Misinformation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Karlos Luna  and
Malen Migueles
Karlos Luna*
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Malen Migueles
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karlos Luna, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad del País Vasco; Avda. Tolosa, 70, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Gipuzkoa (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Estudiamos la aceptación de información falsa y la memoria de contenidos centrales y periféricos sobre un crimen. Además, también nos interesamos por la confianza que los testigos tienen en su memoria. Los participantes vieron un vídeo sobre un robo a un banco, inmediatamente después completaron un cuestionario con preguntas en las que se introdujo información falsa sobre contenidos centrales y periféricos y, un día después, completaron una prueba de reconocimiento en la que también indicaron su confianza en la respuesta. El rendimiento fue mejor con contenidos centrales y hubo más falsas alarmas con periféricos. Este resultado puede explicarse a partir de la limitada capacidad atencional del sistema cognitivo y de la mayor capacidad informativa de los contenidos centrales, que puede promover su procesamiento preferencial. La presentación de información falsa empeoró el testimonio al provocar un criterio de respuesta más laxo y la confianza fue mayor ante contenidos centrales que periféricos. Se concluye que es fácil alterar la memoria de un testigo sobre aspectos periféricos, pero es más difícil con aspectos centrales. Sin embargo, cuando se presenta información falsa, los errores con información central pueden evaluarse con confianza alta, lo que los haría potencialmente creíbles y peligrosos en el sistema judicial.

Keywords

eyewitness memoryfalse memoriesmisinformation paradigmcentral and peripheral informationconfidencememoria de testigosfalsas memoriasparadigma de la información engañosainformación central y periféricaconfianza
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 2009 , pp. 405 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J.M. (2003). Eyewitness memory for arousing events: Putting things into context. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, A., Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1992). Remembering emotional events. Memory and Cognition, 20, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, S.-A. (1992a). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, S.-A., & Loftus, E.F. (1990). Some characteristics of people's traumatic memories. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, S.-A., & Loftus, E.F. (1991). Remembering emotional events: The fate of detailed information. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, A.L., & Daneman, M. (2006). Social suggestibility to central and peripheral misinformation. Memory, 14, 486–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 275–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 163–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R.P., & Geiselman, R.E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.Google Scholar
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>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekkanen, S.T., & McEvoy, C. (2002). False memories and sourcemonitoring problems: Criterion differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1990). Vivid memories of emotional events: The accuracy of remembered minutiae. Memory and Cognition, 18, 496–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 17, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J.G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, R., & Hayne, H. (2001). The effect of postevent information on adults' eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wessel, I., & Merckelbach, H. (1994). Characteristics of traumatic memories in normal subjects. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, R.A., & Safer, M.A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (1998). Memory quality and misinformation for peripheral and central objects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar