This paper examines the misinformation effect, which describes how eyewitness testimony can be influenced by false or misleading information presented after an event. It reviews numerous studies that highlight the malleability of memory and the various ways misinformation is introduced, along with factors that make individuals susceptible to inaccurate memories. The implications of these findings are significant for the criminal justice system, emphasizing the need for further research to develop strategies to mitigate the effects of misinformation.

1. Running Head: MISINFORMATION EFFECT 1
MISINFORMATION EFFECT 2
Abstract
This paper explores various published articles which depict
research results from studies conducted on the effects of
misinformation on eyewitness testimony. Misinformation is
“false or inaccurate information, especially that which is
deliberately intended to deceive” (Oxforddictionaries.com).
With the use of misinformation it may be possible to mislead
witnesses allowing them to present false information. This
papers examines articles from researchers such as Blank, Ost,
Davies, Jones, Lambert and Salmon (2013), Loftus (2005),
Chrobak and Zaragoza (2013), and Eakin, Schreiber and
Sergeant-Marshall (2003) in relation to other studies conducted

2. in order to determine how misinformation is introduced,
possible reasons the effect occurs, and suggestions on how to
reduce its effects.
The Misinformation Effect and the Effects it has on Eyewitness
Testimony
There is a wide misconception that a person’s long-term
memory actually records experiences exactly as they happened.
However, memories and events we have are very malleable and
can be altered and/or molded. It is proven fact that our long-
term memory is susceptible to errors. The impreciseness in a
person’s memory can further be altered with the misinformation
effect. The misinformation effect transpires when mislead
information is presented to someone after they have experienced
the event.
Misinformation can have unfavorable consequences in
investigations and trials. “The fallibility of eyewitness memory
is a crucial problem in the administration of justice, and
documented cases of false convictions based on faulty
eyewitness testimony abound” (Zaragoza, Payment, Ackil,
Drivdahl & Beck, 2001, p. 473). Over the past few decade
numerous studies have been conducted centering on the various
facets and implications of the misinformation effect and how it
affects eyewitness testimony. Through the introduction of
misinformation to someone’s thoughts and observations, they
can easily be manipulated, leading them to dictate false or
inaccurate information. Misinformation may be presented in

3. many ways to witnesses such as I nterviewing, cross-
examination, and narratives. This paper examines research that
has been conducted from various authors in regards to how
misinformation is introduced, possible reasons the effect occurs,
and suggestions on how to reduce its effects as well as propose
where additional research may be conducted to further
understand this phenomenon.
It has long since been discovered that the misinformation effect
exists and can have negative effects when it comes to
eyewitness testimony. In 2002, 110 inmates were released from
prison due DNA exonerations making them not guilty. Out of
the 110, eleven were on death row. In the majority of these
cases the individuals were convicted largely on the testimony of
eyewitnesses.
Numerous studies have been conducted over the past forty-five
years in order to help explain this phenomenon and how it
occurs. Each study has built upon the next. One of the key
components of this effect is having misinformation introduced
to someone. There are many avenues that misinformation may
be presented to a person. Misinformation can be presented both
directly (face-to-face) or indirectly (written narratives,
questionnaires, etc.). Eyewitness events are not an isolated
experiences, but instead are shadowed by a series of post-
experiences. These post experiences can include things such as
interactions with other eyewitnesses, media coverage, or
conversations with family and friends. Forensic interviewing is
another post event experience that can affect the misinformation
phenomenon. These allow for eyewitnesses exposure to new and
potentially misleading information.
In a study conducted by Blank et al. (2013) it was found that
eyewitnesses presented misinformation to a lesser extent when
they were exposed to it directly through face-to-face
interactions.. They noted that this may be due to the
trustworthiness of those presenting the information as well as
other influences. This was further backed up by research
conducted by Rivardo, Rutledge, Chelecki, Stayer, Quarles, and

4. Kline, (2013). Rivardo et al. studied how collaboration of
witnesses can affect both the accuracy and inaccuracy of
information. Through their studies they determined that
influences from others such as normative influences (weighing
the cost of disagreeing with the costs of being wrong) and
informational influences (weighing the probability of the other
person being correct with the probability of oneself being
correct) from other individuals can have an effect on
misinformation reported. Blank et al. (2013) hypothesized the
more trusting the presenter is, the more likely it would be for
eyewitnesses to present the false information.
Valentine and Maras (2011) further studied how the manner in
which one receives misinformation affects the level in which
they present false or inaccurate information. Cross-examination
is an important part of all court cases. They focused largely on
the different aspects of questioning and suggestibility. It was
found that through certain techniques and manipulations such as
the way a questions was formatted or through different word
plays, interviewers could cause confusion which resulted in
eyewitnesses changing their answers or depicting
misinformation. According to their research, the manner in
which the questioning occurs also has an effect on the
presentation of misinformation. It was found that more
aggressive interviewing led to a higher report of
misinformation. They also discovered through the use of leading
questions they could achieve the reporting of false information
even more. Valentine and Maras’s research was fundamental in
the placement of laws restricting leading questions in the court
room.
The way memories are formed has been at the center of
psychological research for nearly as long as psychology has
been around. Zaragoza, Payment, Ackil, Drivdahl, and Beck
(2001) provided further evidence of suggestibility of
eyewitnesses stating “social scientists and legal practitioners
have long recognized that suggestive forensic (or therapeutic)
interview practices are a major cause of inaccuracies in

5. eyewitness memory” (Zaragoza et al., 2001). They further
determined that confabulation plays a large role in the
misinformation effect. By forcing confabulations from
individuals interviewers can effectively transmit false
information and create false memories. Confirmation on these
confabulations further reinforces them making these false
memories more prevalent in eyewitness’s minds. These findings
were furthered by the studies on forced confabulations by
Chrobak and Zaragoza (2013) which found that eventually
eyewitnesses believe the memories were their own rather than a
confabulation placed in their head.
As mentioned before the study of memory has been at the
forefront of psychological research for decades. Due to the
complexity of the human mind, exactly how memories are
formed and stored is unknown. More important to this topic,
how memories are retrieved is also unknown. One suggestion on
why the misinformation effect is so prominent is due to
retrieval blocking cue incrementing. Retrieval blocking in this
instance refers to the degree in which access to the original
information is reduced due to accessing the misinformation.
According to Eakin, Schreiber and Sergent-Marshall (2003),
“when a representation is retrieved from memory, the strength
of association between the representation, the retrieval cue, and
retrieval context increases” (Eakin, Schreiber & Sergent-
Marshall, 2003, p. 813). When someone is presented with the
same or similar cue, it is likely that the same memory will be
retrieved again. When retrieval conditions support accessibility
to the misleading information, the misinformation effect is
higher. The theory of retrieval blocking also aligns with the
findings that in general, the misinformation effect is greater
when eyewitnesses are exposed to misleading information after
the original information (Eakin et al., 2003, p. 822).
Time is considered another large contributor to the
misinformation effect. As suggested by Loftus (2005). The
length of time between an experienced event and relaying
information may cause deterioration memory leading one to

6. present false or inaccurate information. Age may also be a
contributing factor. Studies have shown that young children and
elderly are more susceptible to the misinformation effect. This
can be contributed to cognitive resources as attentional
resources may be limited in the young and elderly. Is also
suggested that being self-monitored and having certain
personality traits such as being empathetic and absorption may
make one more susceptible to this phenomenon. Morgan,
Southwich, Steffian, Hazlett and Loftus (2012) proved that
highly stressful events also increase the misinformation effect.
Morgan et al. (2012) conducted a study at a U.S. Navy Survival
School training during a mock POW camp. During their study
military members were subject to highly stressful events and
intense interrogations during which they were presented with
false information about their interrogators. Even amongst
trained military personnel they were able to elicit large
quantities of misinformation. For example “approximately 50%
of participants, when presented a target-absent eyewitness array
and asked to identify their interrogator, gave false positive
identifications” (Morgan et al., 2012). It was also found that
when presented at the group level, misinformation had a larger
effect.
Many authors of these studies offer up suggestions on how to
reduce the misinformation effect. Some of these include giving
warnings that misinformation may be received, asking for the
source of the memories, or using the logic of opposition where
participants are asked to ignore any information they may be
subjected to after the original event. However, in a real world
scenario, it is nearly impossible to evade coming into contact
with external sources (e.g. Police, family, other eyewitnesses,
and the media) of misinformation, not to mention the internal
cognitive errors the mind may make.
It is still unknown if the human mind stores memories
indefinitely or if it replaces them after time. Likewise it is
unknown for sure whether false memories replace original
memories or if they can coexist. In essence the coexistence

7. theory of false memory suggests that both memories can be
present in the brain but due to certain cognitive mechanisms
such as suppression or inhibition, the true memory is made
inaccessible. To combat misinformation in a real world scenario
some research conducted (Gordon and Shapiro, 2012) suggests
that these memories, with priming, the original memory can be
activated, which helps reduce the misinformation effect.
Through the use of associative priming it was shown that
activation and retrieval of original memories is possible.
Another theory in reducing the misinformation effect is the
plurality option. According to an article written by Luna and
Martin-Luengo (2012), there are two options that can help
reduce misinformation and increase report accuracy, these are
the report option and the gain-size option. With the report
option individuals have the ability to report or withhold answers
based on how they view the quality of their memory is. The
gain-size option allows individuals to report more broadly
rather than specific details. For example they can say the
offender was between 180lbs and 200lbs instead of pinpointing
a weight such as saying the offender was 180lbs. Allowing these
decisions has been shown to increase accuracy. Luna and
Martin-Luengo took the gain-size option and renamed it the
plurality option. This option allows an individual to answer a
question with options rather than a specific answer. For
example the question “What was the weapon used?” and
answers could include “A. a revolver, a taser, or a pistol.” By
allowing individuals to answer more generally rather than
specifically stating it was a revolver, the accuracy increased.
While these options increase accuracy, they also decrease
informativeness, which is also important in an investigation.
Luna and Martin-Luengo added in the suggestion that this
method be used when testimonies may be of poor quality,
contaminated, or occurring after a long length of time.
The importance of the misinformation effect and the results it
may lead to is essential to understand in order to prevent
inaccuracies in the criminal justice system. There is still much

8. study needed in the area of the misinformation effect. Through
the studies conducted throughout the years it is clear that the
presentation of misinformation, suggestibility, and
confabulation promote the likelihood that false or inaccurate
information may be reported. There is still a lot to discover in
regards to how we receive, encode, and retrieve memories
which makes fully understanding the misinformation effect
difficult. Further research on the activation and priming of
memories may allow for better accuracy in memory. This
phenomenon needs to be studied in more real world scenarios to
better account for all the types of misinformation one may be
subjected to. Loftus (2005), Gordon and Shapiro (2012), and
Luna and Martin-Luengo (2012) all offered potential solutions
in order to help reduce the effects of this phenomenon however,
it is clear that more research in this area is necessary. These
articles along with others have begun to lay the foundation for
what is sure to be a widely researched topic.
References
Blank, H., Ost, J., Davies, J., Jones, G., Lambert, K., & Salmon,
K. (2013). Comparing the influence of directly vs. indirectly
encountered post-event misinformation on eyewitness
remembering. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 635-641. Retrieved
from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/science/article
/pii/S0001691813002278#
Chrobak, Q. M., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2013). When forced

9. fabrications become truth: Causal explanations and false
memory development. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 142(3), 827-844.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030093
Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003).
Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and
absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and
misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 813-825.
Retrieved from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-
7393.29.5.813
Gordon, L. T., & Shapiro, A. M. (2012). Priming correct
information reduces the misinformation effect. Memory &
Cognition, 40(5), 717-726. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1470088563?accountid=348
99
Loftus, E. (2005). Planting Misinformation In The Human
Mind: A 30-year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory.
Learning & Memory, (12), 361-366. Retrieved from
http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/12/4/361.full
Luna, K. B., Martin-Luengo, B. (2012). Improving the Accuracy
of Eyewitnesses in the Presence of Misinformation with the
Plurality Option. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 687-
693. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=7d33035e-124b-4833-9e2b-
a392a4f693c8%40sessionmgr4005&vid=2&hid=4109
Morgan, C., Southwich, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G., & Loftus,
E. (2012). Misinformation can influence memory for recently
experienced, highly stressful events. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 36(1), 11-17. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/science/article
/pii/S016025271200088X
Oxforddictionaries.com. (n.d.). Definition of misinformation in
English. Retrieved from
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_engli

10. sh/misinformation
Rivardo, M. G., Rutledge, A. T., Chelecki, C., Stayer, B. E.,
Quarles, M., & Kline, A. (2013). Collaborative recall of
eyewitness event increases misinformation effect at 1Week.
North American Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 495-512.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1467525296?accountid=348
99
Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross-
examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 554-561. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/detail/[ema
il protected]&vid=0&hid=105
Zaragoza, M. S., Payment, K. E., Ackil, J. K., Drivdahl, S. B.,
& Beck, M. (2001). Interviewing Witnesses: Forced
Confabulation and Confirmatory Feedback Increase False
Memories. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 12(6),
473-477. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/detail/detai
l?sid=b39f705b-33df-
4adfb5d301e5607c442f%40sessionmgr4001&crlhashurl=login.a
spx%253fdirect%253dtrue%2526scope%253dsite%2526db%253
ds3h%2526AN%253d5408295%2526msid%253d427807806&hid
=4109&vid=0&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#A
N=5408295&db=s3h