Forced confabulation affects memory sensitivity as well as response bias

A signal detection analysis assessed the extent to which forced confabulation results from a change in memory sensitivity (da), as well as response criterion (β). After viewing a crime video, participants answered 14 answerable and 6 unanswerable questions. Those in the voluntary guess condition had a “don’t know” response option; those in the forced guess condition did not. One week later, the same questions were answered using a recognition memory test that included each participant’s initial responses. As was predicted, on both answerable and unanswerable questions, participants in the forced guess condition had significantly lower response criteria than did those who voluntarily guessed. Furthermore, on both answerable and unanswerable questions, da scores were also significantly lower in the forced than in the voluntary guess condition. Thus, the forced confabulation effect is a real memory effect above and beyond the effects of response bias; forcing eyewitnesses to guess or speculate can actually change their memory.

[1]  E F Loftus,et al.  Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[2]  Elizabeth F Loftus,et al.  Leading questions and the eyewitness report , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  Caren M Rotello,et al.  Type I error rates and power analyses for single-point sensitivity measures , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  R. Hastie,et al.  Eyewitness testimony: the dangers of guessing , 1978 .

[5]  William P. Banks,et al.  Signal detection theory and human memory. , 1970 .

[6]  K. Pezdek,et al.  Forced confabulation more strongly influences event memory if suggestions are other-generated than self-generated , 2009 .

[7]  Elizabeth A. Olson,et al.  Eyewitness testimony. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  A. Simpson,et al.  What is the best index of detectability? , 1973, Psychological Bulletin.

[9]  "What else could he have done?" Creating false answers in child witnesses by inviting speculation. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  K. Pezdek,et al.  Interviewing Witnesses: The Effect of Forced Confabulation on Event Memory , 2007, Law and human behavior.

[11]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  Interviewing Witnesses: Forced Confabulation and Confirmatory Feedback Increase False Memories , 2001, Psychological science.

[12]  Hugo Münsterberg,et al.  On the Witness Stand; Essays on Psychology and Crime , 2007 .

[13]  M. Zaragoza,et al.  Memorial consequences of forced confabulation: age differences in susceptibility to false memories. , 1998, Developmental psychology.

[14]  K. Pezdek,et al.  The Effect of Exposure to Multiple Lineups on Face Identification Accuracy , 2001, Law and human behavior.

[15]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[16]  H. Roediger,et al.  Remembering, knowing, and reconstructing the past , 1993 .

[17]  K. Pezdek,et al.  When is an intervening line‐up most likely to affect eyewitness identification accuracy? , 2005 .

[18]  K. Pezdek Cross-Modality Semantic Integration of Sentence and Picture Memory , 2005 .

[19]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .