And that's the way it was?: eyewitness accuracy and the misinformation effect.

Abstract

Because people largely reconstruct their memories for events, they are somewhat vulnerable to the effects of misleading postevent information. The reasons for this misinformation effect are in dispute. Lindsay and Johnson (1989b) reported that providing source options rather than yes/no options on a memory test negated the misinformation effect. However, they presented the misleading text immediately after the stimulus event. Real-life eyewitnesses may testify years after an event. The present study was a replication of Lindsay and Johnson (1989b) modified in two ways. First, a one week retention interval was added (i.e., more ecologically valid research) on the premise that a longer retention interval might cause even source monitoring Subjects to be suggestible. Second, when eyewitnesses read postevent misinformation (e.g. in a newspaper) they may convert verbal information into imagery which influences their memory for the actual event. Therefore, the variable imagery was added. Despite the retention interval, source monitoring prevented the misinformation effect. High relative to low imagers better remembered the stimulus picture but were more vulnerable to misleading suggestion. Future eyewitness researchers should a) include imagery ability as a variable, b) investigate memory integrations, c) promote longer retention intervals, and d) shift from the squabble over reasons for the misinformation effect to finding ways to reduce it.