Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

APS_Kaasa, Laney, Loftus_2007

143 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

APS_Kaasa, Laney, Loftus_2007

  1. 1. Can People Distinguish Between True, False, and Fabricated Memories? Suzanne O. Kaasa* Cara Laney+ Elizabeth F. Loftus* Department of Psychology and Social Behavior University of California, Irvine* School of Psychology University of Leicester+
  2. 2. Importance of Memory Judgments
  3. 3. False vs. Fabricated Memories  False Memory: individuals describe a memory that they believe to be true, but in reality is not (source confusion).  Fabricated Memory: individuals describe a memory that they know is not true (deception).
  4. 4. Judging Memory  Individuals are not good at accurately distinguishing between true and false memories or true vs. fabricated memories (Campbell & Porter, 2002; Leichtman & Ceci, 1995; for review see Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004).  Bias towards Truth (Edelstein et al., 2006; Vrij & Baxter, 1999)
  5. 5. Study Purpose  True vs. False vs. Fabricated memories  Predictors of accuracy and judgment type  Characteristics of participants  Characteristics of memories
  6. 6. Study Design Memory Clip Memory Judgments Questionnaires Memory Clip Memory Judgments 17 Clips Total Memory Judgments
  7. 7. Memory Clips  17 different memories  Randomly presented: True vs. False vs. Fabricated  3 individuals  6 Fabricated, 6 True, 5 False  False “proof”: infantile amnesia, corroboration, etc.
  8. 8. Memory Judgments  True vs. False vs. Fabricated  Confidence in their memory judgment  Plausibility  Detail  Emotionality
  9. 9. Individual Differences  Age  Gender  GPA (high school and undergrad)  SAT
  10. 10. Individual Differences  Eysenck Abbreviated Personality Scale (Francis, Brown & Philipchalk, 1992)  extraversion  neuroticism  psychoticism  lying  Autism-Spectrum Quotient Measure (Baron- Cohen, Wheelwright, Skinner, Martin, & Clubley, 2001)
  11. 11. Method  111 subjects  81% female  Mean age 21
  12. 12. Accuracy  Subjects were on average correct 38% of the time  Range from 1 (6%) correct judgment to 12 (71%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Memories Accurately Judged PercentofSubjects
  13. 13. Individual Differences  Age: ns  Sex: ns  GPA: ns  SAT: ns
  14. 14. Personality Characteristics  Eysenck subscales of extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, and lying: ns  Autism-Spectrum Quotient  Accuracy: ns  Lower plausibility ratings, p < .05  More False memory judgments, p < .01
  15. 15. Memory Bias 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Actual True Judged True PercentofSubjects
  16. 16. Memory Characteristics  Total Accuracy  More detail associated with less accuracy, p < .05  True Label  Higher plausibility (p = .08) and emotionality (p < .05) associated with True label  Fabricated Label  Higher confidence associated with Fabricated label, p < .05  False Label = ns
  17. 17. Summary  Wide range in accuracy, but on average people were accurate less than half the time.  Subjects used cues from the memories such as detail, plausibility, and emotionality when making their judgments.  Of the individual differences studied, only autistic traits was a significant predictor of memory judgments.
  18. 18. Implications & Further Directions  Importance of True, False and Fabricated memories  Cues may mislead individuals  Identifying individual differences in accuracy and judgment biases
  19. 19. Acknowledgements  Undergraduate Research Assistants  Tyler Han  Janet Kim  Kelly Dorsey

×