Brief Exposure to Misinformation Can Lead to Long-Term False Memory Propensity.
C Chen,Bi Zhu,Elizabeth F. Loftus
2012-01-01
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Abstract:Applied Cognitive Psychology, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 26: 301–307 (2012) Published online 15 December 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1825 Brief Exposure to Misinformation Can Lead to Long-Term False Memories BI ZHU 1,2 , CHUANSHENG CHEN 2 , ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS 2 *, QINGHUA HE 1 , CHUNHUI CHEN 1 , XUEMEI LEI 1 , CHONGDE LIN 1 and QI DONG 1 * State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, China Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, USA Abstract: Do false memories last? And do they last as long as true ones? This study investigated whether experimentally created false memories would persist for an extended period (one and a half years). A large number of subjects (N = 342) participated in a standard three-stage misinformation procedure (saw the event slides, read the narrations with misinformation, and then took the memory tests). The initial tests showed that misinformation led to a significant amount of false memory. One and a half years later, the participants were tested again. About half of the misinformation false memory persisted, which was the same rate as for true memory. These results strongly suggest that brief exposure to misinformation can lead to long-term false memory and that the strength of memory trace was similar for true and false memories. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INTRODUCTION Human memory is not perfect. True memory fades, whereas false memory appears (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Loftus, 2003). Much is known about the longevity of true (or verid- ical) memory (e.g. Ebbinghaus’ (1885/1964) classic ‘forget- ting curve’). Much less is known, however, about the longevity or persistence of false memories. How long do false memories last? What types of false memories persist and why? Intuitively, false memories that are recounted once in a while (e.g. repeatedly giving eyewitness accounts of an event with some false information) will last at least as long as they are being recounted. What about false memory that is induced briefly in an experimental setting and is unlikely to be recounted? Answers to this question should be of great significance to our understanding of the enduring power of false memories. Researchers have used several paradigms to study false memory [e.g. the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm (DRM), the misinformation paradigm]. For example, the misinformation paradigm includes three standard stages— experiencing an event, receiving misinformation about the event, and being tested for memory of the event (Loftus, 2003)—with some variations in the specific design of each stage (e.g. Bekerian & Bowers, 1983; McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985). Studies have shown that the subjects’ memory of the original event was affected by the misinformation they received, and false memories were hence created (see Loftus, 2003 for a review). The nature of such false memories, how- ever, has been under much debate. Researchers have proposed various theories such as the source-monitoring framework, the activation-monitoring account, the fuzzy trace theory, and the distinctiveness heuristic (see Brainerd & Reyna, 2005 for a description of these theories). The source-monitoring frame- work, for example, proposed that the false memories occur because of misattribution or confusion of the sources of information. Based on the source-monitoring framework, we predicted that once the subjects misattributed the source of *Correspondence to: Elizabeth F. Loftus, University of California, Irvine, 2393 Social Ecology II, Irvine, CA, USA 92697; Qi Dong, State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, China. E-mail: Elizabeth F. Loftus, eloftus@uci.edu; Qi Dong, dongqi@bnu.edu.cn Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. the false memories at the initial testing session, the rates of long-term decay of such false memories would be the same as those for true (veridical) memories. Thus far, only a few studies have examined the long-term (>1 year) persistence of false memories created in experi- mental settings with the misinformation paradigm. More than a half century ago, Davis and Sinha (1950) conducted an experimental study of long-term false memory arising from misinformation. They asked the subjects to read a story and three days later showed the subjects a picture that purportedly depicted the story. One group of the subjects was shown a picture that included some information that was inconsistent with the original story. Of relevance to the current study, a total of 16 subjects (nine in the misinforma- tion group) were asked to recall the story after 1 year. Results showed that details from the misinformation picture ‘intruded’ into later recall of the story. Although limited in scale and rigor (a very small sample size after much attrition, only one story with limited measures, no control items, no statistical tests), this study presented initial empirical evi- dence that false memory induced by experimentally pre- sented misinformation can last for at least a year. Since then, three other studies have examined long-term (≥1 year) maintenance of false memories created by misin- formation in children. Huffman, Crossman, and Ceci (1997) explored whether source misattributions that had been reported in an earlier study (by Ceci, Huffman, Smith & Loftus, 1994) persisted over time. In the earlier study (Ceci et al., 1994), children had been asked to imagine a false event (e.g. riding a hot-air balloon). For the following 10 weeks, these children were interviewed weekly, during which they were asked to ‘think real hard’ about whether the events had occurred (no matter whether true or false) and try to ‘recollect’ them. At the end of these interviews (i.e. misinformation sessions), children assented to 22% of the false events. Two years later, Huffman et al. (1997) followed up 22 children (6–7 years old) from the original Ceci et al. (1994) study. Half of the children still assented to at least one of the false events, and on average, the children assented to 13% of all false events. More recently, London, Bruck and Melnyk (2009) did a follow-up interview with 45 children (4–6 years old) who