advertisement
Home » News » Memory Can Improve When False Info Is Identified Upfront
Memory Can Improve When False Info Is Identified Upfront

Memory Can Improve When False Info Is Identified Upfront

New research suggests there are times when detecting misinformation can actually boost memory.

The finding alters the traditional perception that exposure to false information about an event usually makes it more difficult for people to recall the original details.

Researchers discovered that people who actually notice that the misinformation is inconsistent with the original event have better memory for the event compared with people who never saw the misinformation in the first place.

A paper on the study is found in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Our experiments show that misinformation can sometimes enhance memory rather than harm it,” said psychological scientist Adam Putnam, Ph.D., of Carleton College, lead author of the research.

“These findings are important because they help explain why misinformation effects occur sometimes but not at other times — if people notice that the misinformation isn’t accurate then they won’t have a false memory.”

In their first experiment, Putnam and colleagues had 72 undergraduate participants view six slide shows, each of which contained 50 photos portraying a particular event. After looking through the slide shows, the participants completed an unrelated “distractor” task for about five minutes and then read narrative descriptions for each slide in the previous slide shows.

For example, if the slide showed a thief finding one dollar bills in a car, the description might be consistent (e.g., “He examined the bills, and saw they were all one dollar bills”), neutral (e.g., “He examined the bills and saw they were all US currency”), or inconsistent (e.g., “He examined the bills and saw that they were all $20 bills”) with the slide show.

After reading the descriptions and completing another distractor task, the participant then answered multiple-choice questions about what they remembered from the original slide shows, such as “What kind of bills were in the car?”

The responses included a correct option (one dollar bills), an incorrect option with misinformation from the narrative ($20 bills), or a different incorrect option (five dollar bills). After making their selection, participants reported whether they had noticed any discrepancies between the original slide show and the narratives.

Researchers discovered that as expected, people were most likely to choose the misinformation response when the detail in the narrative was inconsistent with the slide show.

But when participants reported remembering a change between the slide shows and the narrative, this deficit disappeared: Participants were more likely to select the correct response after seeing misinformation compared with seeing a neutral detail.

And when they reported that the narrative had contradicted the slide, participants were less likely to select the incorrect misinformation response for details that were inconsistent in the narrative compared with those that were neutral.

Although exposure to misinformation seemed to impair memory for the correct detail, detecting and remembering misinformation in the narrative seemed to improve participants’ recognition later on.

A second experiment produced similar results, and additional analyses showed that how memorable a detail was seemed to make a difference. Details that were less memorable, relatively speaking, were more vulnerable to the misinformation effect.

These findings suggest that the relationship between misinformation and memory is more complex than we might have thought — mere exposure to misinformation doesn’t automatically cue the misinformation effect.

“Classic interference theory in memory suggests that change is almost always bad for memory, but our study is one really clear example of how change can help memory in the right circumstances,” Putnam said.

“People may learn about false memory research and walk away thinking that false memories can easily be implanted about all sorts of events — that we’re constantly remembering things that never happened,” said Putnam.

“Our research helps in showing that although false memories can occur with some regularity, it isn’t a sure thing by any means.”

Source: Association for Psychological Science

Memory Can Improve When False Info Is Identified Upfront

Rick Nauert PhD

Rick Nauert, PhDDr. Rick Nauert has over 25 years experience in clinical, administrative and academic healthcare. He is currently an associate professor for Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals doctoral program in health promotion and wellness. Dr. Nauert began his career as a clinical physical therapist and served as a regional manager for a publicly traded multidisciplinary rehabilitation agency for 12 years. He has masters degrees in health-fitness management and healthcare administration and a doctoral degree from The University of Texas at Austin focused on health care informatics, health administration, health education and health policy. His research efforts included the area of telehealth with a specialty in disease management.

APA Reference
Nauert PhD, R. (2017). Memory Can Improve When False Info Is Identified Upfront. Psych Central. Retrieved on September 21, 2018, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/01/04/memory-can-improve-when-false-info-is-identified-upfront/114687.html

 

Scientifically Reviewed
Last updated: 4 Jan 2017
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 4 Jan 2017
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.