Memory Schemas, Source Monitoring & Eyewitness Memory Psychology 355: Cognitive Psychology Instructor: John Miyamoto 05/09/2018: Lecture 07-3 Note: This Powerpoint presentation may contain macros that I wrote to help me create the slides. The macros aren’t needed to view the slides. You can disable or delete the macros without any change to the presentation.

Lecture probably ends here Outline Finish: Flashbulb memories Memory schemas Source monitoring Eyewitness memory Lecture probably ends here Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

Goldstein Fig. 8.8. Talarico & Rubin (2003) Number of details correctly recalled for everyday & flashbulb memories as a function of days after the event. Confidence in the accuracy of everyday & flashbulb memories as a function of days after the event. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Summary of Results Depicted in these Graphs (Redundant)

Talarico Fig 1a Figure 1 from Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14, 455-461. Number of correct details diminishes over time for both flashbulb and everyday memories. Belief in the accuracy of memories diminishes over time for everyday memories but remains high for FBM's. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Why Does Confidence Remains High While Accuracy Diminishes Over Time?

Why do people have high confidence in the accuracy of FBM's even though the accuracy declines? People keep thinking about flashbulb memories. Increases strength of memory. Supports the narrative rehearsal hypothesis. People add information that helps them make sense out of the memory, but the added information may not be accurate. The added information makes the memory more meaningful. Memory is constructive or reconstructive. Source misattribution. I.e., people learn something after an event but they come to believe that they learned it while experiencing the event. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Return to Question: Is there a Special Mechanism for FBM's?

Do Flashbulb Memories (FBM’s) Involve Special Cognitive Mechanisms? Bottom line: No convincing evidence that FBM's involve special mechanisms, although there are ways in which they tend to be unusual. Encoding is often associated with stronger emotion, more vivid detail, events are more personally important. It is likely that FBM’s are retrieved multiple times. These retrievals lead to strengthened associations with other facts and ideas. Consolidation and reconstruction of memory over time. Over time, people have higher confidence in the accuracy of FBM's than everyday memories from the same time period. FBM's appear more vivid and more clear at time of retrieval. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 A Schema for "Office Rooms"

Brewer & Treyens (1981) : A Schema for "Office Room" Schemas: Representations of typical characteristics of objects, situations or events. Subject asked to wait in this office room for about 30 seconds prior to start of experiment. Subject does not know that memory will be tested for this room. Subject is moved to another room. Recall test – What do you remember about the waiting room? 7 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Predictions & Findings of "Office Room" Experiment

Brewer & Treyens (1981): A Schema for "Office Room" Predictions: Memory will be biased .... .... towards recall of schema- consistent information; .... and against recall of schema- inconsistent information Findings: Correct recall: Desk, chairs, shelves Intrusion Errors: Books on shelves Omission Errors: Skull, small doll These results show the constructive nature of memory. We use schemas to fill in the gaps in our memory. Schema consistent Schema inconsistent Advantages & Disadvantages of Schematic Influences on Memory 8 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

Schemas and Scripts Influence Memory Memory can include information not actually experienced but inferred because it is expected and consistent with the schema "Scripts" are like schemas except that a script is a typical sequence of events or actions. We have scripts for how to pay for our purchases in a check out line at the market. We have scripts for how to greet a respected visitor to our home. Memory is constructive. The constructive property of memory is generally advantageous, but it can lead to errors or “false memories” Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Roediger/McDermott/Deese Experiment – Same as Coglab

False Memory 1 Downloaded with permission from Thomas Pusateri’s website, http://iea.fau.edu/pusateri/home/index.htm, 29 December 2004. The version of the demonstration shown here slightly modifies the original. Demonstration of the Deese (1959), Roediger & McDermott (1995) false memory paradigm. The False Memory experiment was assigned to Psych 355 students (CogLab). 10 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Instructions for the Experiment

Roediger/McDermott/Deese Paradigm You will see a list of 19 words, one at a time. Do whatever you can to remember as many words as you can. At the end of the list, write down as many of the words as you can recall. Note to Instructor: The following stimulus slides are self timed (1.8 seconds/slide), so just let them run. You don’t have to advance the slides. ALL-PURPOSE MEMORY DEMONSTRATION 1 (POSSIBLE FALSE MEMORY FOR SLEEP) This demonstration is an adaptation of a workshop presentation by Douglas Bernstein. He could not locate the original source of this demonstration, which was introduced to him by one of his teaching assistants in introductory psychology. The instructions appear on the first slide. Advance to the second slide to present the list of words for two seconds per word. After the last word, students are instructed to recall all of the words; this slide is timed for forty-five seconds followed by a drum roll. On the last slide, poll the students for recall of certain words in the list. Here is a brief explanation of each memory effect, with some elaboration you may use in your discussion: Primacy effect. The words “bed” and “clock” were the first two words in this list. Most students will recall these words due to the greater opportunity for rehearsing these words. Recency effect. The words “snore” and “pillow” were the last two words in the list. Most students will recall these words because they are still in their immediate attention (short-term memory) during recall. You may wish to ask students how recall for these words could be disrupted. The answer is by introducing a distractor task after presentation of the list. Repetition/Rehearsal. Words in the middle of a list are often not well-recalled, however, most students will recall the word “night”. Ask students if they can recall how often the word “night” appeared in the list. It is likely that many students will indicate correctly that the word was repeated three times in the list. Repetition facilitates recall because it permits additional opportunity to rehearse this word compared to other words in the middle of the list. Distinctiveness. Most of the words are associated with each other. However, one word in the list, “artichoke” is so different than the others that it is often recalled, even though it appears in the middle of the list. You may discuss this as an example of deeper processing of a word that is distinctive, salient, and unusual. Semantic Organization. First ask the volunteers if they recalled the word “toss”. Then, ask those who recalled “toss” whether they followed recall of the word “toss” immediately by recall of the word “turn”. There will be several students who recall the words as a pair, even though they are separated in the list and “turn” precedes “toss”. You may discuss this as a form of semantic organization or elaboration of memory. The words are very highly associated and easily connected together in students’ recall. “False Memory”. Ask the whole class if anyone recalled the word “sleep”. Ask those students who recalled this word to attempt to recall where in the list the word appeared. Was it in the first half or the last half of the list? Most students who recall the word will report that they “know” it is in the list, but they cannot “remember” exactly where the word appeared. This demonstrates that constructive processes in memory may create memories of events that did not occur (“false memories”). 11 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Start of the Stimulus Sequence

BED 12 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

CLOCK 13 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

DREAM 14 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

NIGHT 15 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

TURN 16 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

MATTRESS 17 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

SNOOZE 18 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

NOD 19 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

TIRED 20 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

NIGHT 21 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

STOVE 22 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

INSOMNIA 23 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

REST 24 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

TOSS 25 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

NIGHT 26 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

ALARM 27 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

NAP 28 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

SNORE 29 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

PILLOW 30 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

************************************************ WRITE DOWN THE WORDS YOU SAW ************************************************ Psych 355 students are already familiar with this experiment from CogLab. Actually you can skip this step, but this is what subjects are asked to do. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Correct List of Words & Types of Erors 31

Here are the stimulus words in the presented order: BED, CLOCK, DREAM, NIGHT, TURN, MATTRESS, SNOOZE, NOD, TIRED, NIGHT, STOVE, INSOMNIA, REST, TOSS, NIGHT, ALARM, NAP, SNORE, PILLOW Types of Memory Errors Intrusion errors: Words not on the list that you thought were there. Common intrusion error: Sleep related words like: SLEEP, DROWSY or FATIGUE Omission errors: Words on the list that you didn't recall. Common omission error: Non-sleep related word like: STOVE Interpretation of Experimental Results 32 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

Interpretation of Results for the Roediger/McDermott/Deese Paradigm Almost all of the words are sleep-related ("going to sleep" schema). The Roediger/McDermott/Deese paradigm is designed to cause subjects to make two kinds of errors: Schema-consistent intrusion errors. In the preceding example, the schema was something like "objects or actions that are related to sleeping." For this example, schema-consistent intrusion errors would be words like: "sleep", "drowsy", "pajamas", etc. Schema-inconsistent omission errors. The word STOVE was the only non-sleep related word in the list. Subjects are more likely to omit STOVE than other words. Schema-consistent intrusion errors & schema-inconsistent omission errors provide evidence for the constructive (or reconstructive) nature of memory. In general, people will remember experiences in a way that creates a more coherent story. 33 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Advantages & Disadvantages of Memory Schemas

Constructive Memory Advantages Disadvantages Helps to create a meaningful narrative about our life experiences. Allows us to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Speeds up how quickly we can interpret or respond to a situation. Sometimes our memories are based on expectations and not on the actual experience. Schemas help organize experiences into "chunks" that are easier to manipulate in working memory, and easier to associate with similar experiences. Sometimes we make errors without realizing it. Intro to Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness Testimony Basic source of evidence in the Anglo-American legal system. Historically more trusted than circumstantial evidence. Of 341 people who were exonerated by DNA evidence as of 2012, eyewitness testimony played a role in 75% of the original convictions. (Quinlivan et al., 2009; Scheck et al., 2000). Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Sources of Error in Eyewitness Testimony

Source Monitoring & Source Misattribution Source monitoring - Retaining a memory of the source of a memory. What was the source of this memory? Source misattribution - attributing a memory to one source when the actual source was something else. Example: My friends tell me about a large building fire that they witnessed. Years later I believe that I witnessed this fire along with my friends. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Source Misattribution & Errors in Eyewitness Memory

Source Misattribution is One Cause of Erroneous Eyewitness Memory Source misattribution can cause errors in eyewitness testimony. A familiar face is more likely to be falsely identified as a perpetrator of a crime (witness thinks the familiarity is due to seeing this person commit the crime). Example: A woman was attacked in her home shortly after watching a TV show in which a psychologist, David Thompson, was interviewed. Later she identified David Thompson as the attacker. (He had an alibi, the interview on the TV show.) Remember/Know Distinction: Feeling of familiarity ≠ Recollection but people may say that they "remember" Mr. X when Mr. X is familiar. * Ironically, David Thompson studies memory distortion. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Ross et al. Experimental Study of Source Misattribution

Source Misattribution & Eyewitness Identification See Figure 8.17 in Goldstein Robber Not Present Try to pick robber from photospread; male teacher present Experimental View male teacher reading to students Both Conditions View female teacher getting robbed by a man. Robber Present Try to pick robber from photospread; male teacher present Control View female teacher reading to students Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidenti­fies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918-930. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Same Slide with Emphasis Rectangles

Source Misattribution & Eyewitness Identification See Figure 8.17 in Goldstein Robber Not Present Try to pick robber from photospread; male teacher present Experimental View male teacher reading to students Both Conditions View female teacher getting robbed by a man. Robber Present Try to pick robber from photospread; male teacher present Control View female teacher reading to students Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidenti­fies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918-930. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Experimental Results

Robber not in photospread % Identification of Male Teacher Results of Ross et al. (1994) Figure 8.20: Ross et. al. (1994) 60% id male teacher when robber not in photospread. 20% id teacher in control group. 18% id male teacher when robber in photospread. 10% id teacher in control group. Source misattributions can cause mistaken identifications. Robber not in photospread Robber in photospread E C 60 40 20 0 % Identification of Male Teacher E = Experimental Condition = View male teacher at stage 1 C = Control Condition = View female teacher at stage 1 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Misinformation Effect

Overview of the Misinformation Effect MPI = Misleading Postevent Information Subject sees a video, or a slide sequence, or reads a story. I'll call this "the video." The video usually depicts a crime. After seeing the video, the subject is asked questions about it. For some subjects, the questions contain misinformation (a.k.a. MPI or false assumptions). Subjects receive a memory test. A misinformation effect is found if subjects who heard the misleading questions remember the video in a way that is consistent with the question and not the video. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Introduce Loftus & Palmer - Car Crash

MPI: Leading Questions Can Produce Memory Biases Loftus & Palmer (1974) Subjects see film of an auto accident. Questions contained alternative descriptions of the accident. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Results: Effect of the Biased Questions

Leading Question Can Produce Memory Biases Verb Estimated Speed smashed 40.8 collided 39.3 bumped 38.1 hit 34.0 contacted 31.8 Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Loftus & Palmer Result for Broken Glass

Leading Questions Can Produce False Inferences One week later, subjects were asked: Did you see any broken glass? Actually, there was no broken glass in the film. Yes No "smashed" 32 68 "hit" 14 86 control* 12 88 * The control group were not asked about the speed of the car (no misinformation; no correct information). UW: Psych 355, Miyamoto, Win '12 Feedback Can Increase Confidence in Erroneous Memories

Feedback Can Increase Confidence in Erroneous Memories Subjects viewed video of crime. Subjects shown a photo array that did not contain the perpetrator of the crime. All subjects picked someone from the photo array. (!!!) Confirming Feedback Condition: "Good, you identified the suspect." No Feedback Condition Disconfirming Feedback Condition: "Actually the suspect was number __." Later when asked how confident they were in their identifications, subjects were most confident with confirming feedback. Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Line Ups versus Show Ups

Wednesday, 9 May, 2018: The Lecture Ended Here Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18

Lineups versus Show-Ups – What Are They? Classic showup: Police show only one person to a witness, often somebody who was caught near the scene of the crime. Question: "Is he the man you saw?" Classic lineup: Police show 7 people to the witness: Question: "Do you see the perpetrator in the line up?" Improved showup = sequential showup: Police tell the witness, "We're going to show you a series of men (of unstated length). Stop me when you see the perpetrator." Contrary to most people's expectations, show ups are more accurate than line ups. Why are showups more accurate than lineups? Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Why Lineups & Showups Differ as Cognitive Tasks

Cognitive Differences Between Lineups and Showups Classic showup: Witness asks himself/herself: "Did I see this person do the crime?" Classic lineup: Witness assumes that the perpetrator is in the lineup. Witness asks himself/herself: "Which of these men looks the most like the person that I saw?" Sequential presentation = sequential showup (Goldstein refers to this a sequential presentation) With each person, the witness asks himself/herself: "Am I sure that this is the person who I saw do the crime?" Lindsey & Wells (1985) found that the sequential showup greatly reduced false id when the perpetrator was not present (43% vs 17%) Sequential showups slightly reduced the rate of true id when perpetrator is present. Mistake! Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 Recommendations for Improving Eyewitness Memory - END

Recommendations for Improving Eyewitness Memory Use a sequential showup (Goldstein would call it a sequential presentation). In a showup, use non-suspects who are similar to a suspect. Inform witness that the perpetrator may not be in a showup. Administrator of showup should not know who is the suspect. Get confidence rating immediately after the initial identification. Avoid giving feedback to the witness after the lineup Use cognitive interview techniques; do not prompt the witness with leading questions. See Wikipedia article on cognitive interview techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview Cognitive interview technique includes: Have witness mentally reinstate the environment and personal context of the event. Have witness report in depth the details of the event, including details that may not seem important or relevant. Describe the event in several different temporal orders. Report the event from various perspectives, e.g., what could another witness see or hear? Psych 355, Miyamoto, Spr '18 END