Tag Archives: American Psychological Association

November 20, 2011 · 9:43 pm

Science, Misinformation, and Make-Believe Memories


In what we know about memory, our memories serve a purpose of enabling people to make sense of the past and incorporate it into the present experience of life.  This importance of memories according to Loftus (2003) explains that people are the sum of our memories: what we have thought, what we are told, and what we believe.  In addition, we are not only shaped by our memories, but existence is shaped by our personal experience.  Loftus argues that we “seem to reinvent our memories, and in doing so, we become the person of our own imagination”  (p. 872).

An important distinction made about the power of suggestion upon initial memory of an event and how memory that is manipulated impacts beliefs formed about events.  Information offered by Elizabeth Loftus in, Make-Believe Memories, advocates that memories are malleable and subject to distortion and suggestion.  The following observations about how memory is influenced through eyewitness accounts of crimes:

“Misinformation can influence people’s memories when they are in a suggestive fashion or when they talk to other people who give their version of events. Misinformation can sway people when they see biased media coverage about some event that they may have experienced themselves. This phenomenon would ultimately be called the misinformation effect [Loftus' italics]” (p. 868).

An apparent assumption about initial memory of an event is that it is influenced by suggestion and post-memory influences, but also by the weight of said influences upon the person holding the memory.  A good place to begin in an understanding what misinformation effect actually means.

A dictionary description of the misinformation effect given in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2007) states, “a phenomenon in which a person mistakenly recalls misleading information that an experimenter has provided, instead of accurately recalling the correct information that has been presented earlier (VandenBos, 2007).  This theory often used in connection with eyewitness memory of events in the investigation procedure.  Loftus cites a cause and effect relationship between what is presented to witnesses to a crime responses to questions asked i.e., “Research on memory distortion has shown that post event suggestion can contaminate what a person remembers” (p. 867).  As a result, a fair assumption about recall of a crime or incident is that the further removed a witness is from the incident and the more times it is discussed the greater chance there is that misinformation effect jades original memories of the event and details.

The position of this article presents the opinion that memory can be distorted by interjecting information and by using techniques which may be misleading to distort original memory.  What can be learned is that misinformation exerts an influence upon what may have been sensed, experienced, and stored in the memory at the time of an event.  The inference is that memories can be altered or changed in intentional and unintentional ways i.e., “Misinformation can influence people’s memories when they are in a suggestive fashion or when they talk to other people who give their version of events”, as cited in (u04d2 Make-Believe Memories, 2010).  A rational conclusion suggests that changes in memories are connected to the suggestions made by the examiner and suggestibility of the person remembering the account.  As a result, an explanation of the misinformation effect contained within the statement made through: post event suggestion (Loftus, 2003) which alters original memory that is stored as suggestion, as well as exposure to other perspectives about the memory-event places influence upon perception.

One important factor in the process is described by Sternberg (2009), as encoding (p. 217). Based on this description, how a memory is encoded –one’s experience, conditions surrounding an event –factors contributing to retrieval, will affect acquisition of information: “the physical, sensory input into a kind of representation” (p. 217) which distorts original sensory input.  Therefore, the misinformation effect suggests that, “suggestion can lead to false memories being injected outright into the minds of people” (Loftus, 2003).

When questions are asked that are suggestive,  false memories are injected into the first impressions of the person being questioned.  Loftus (2003) reports, “that leading questions could contaminate or distort a witness’s memory … Related studies showed that memory could become skewed with various techniques that fed misinformation to unsuspecting individuals” (Make-believe memories).  This practice is associated with techniques which are used in police-witness interviews to a crime.  For example, “Three errors occurred universally: interrupting the witness, asking too many short-answer questions, and inappropriate sequencing of questions” (Fisher, 1995).  A conclusion can be made here that demonstrates that when rehearsal of the memory is interspersed with the injection of questions, interruptions, dialogue, and questions, the initial sensory perception will become adapted to misinformation that affects perception of the original occurrence.

It may seem on the surface that the misinformation effect presents a negative perspective of how memory can be manipulated and the impact upon a criminal investigation.   However, one application of this theory may be of value when applied to research, which could aid in better training for law enforcement professional when conducting witness interviews.  In addition, another application could be that when misinformation is used to correct distorted memories, it may hold properties of value, which present a therapeutic value.  Some examples could be in treatment with those who have experienced traumatic events that present with PTSD symptoms or anxiety related conditions.

Obviously, this article only scratches the surface and more needs to be written on such an important subject of interest.

References

Fisher, R. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of a crime. Psychology, Public Policy,  Law [electronic version] , 1 (4), 732-764, http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.732.

Loftus, E. F. (2003, November). Make-believe memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied [electronic version] , 14 (3), pp. 255-265, http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost, doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.14.3.255.

Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psychology (5th Edition ed.). Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.

u04d2 Make-Believe Memories. (2010). Retrieved 5 2009, August , from Capella Universisty: http://courseroom2.capella.edu/

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.

Related articles

Leave a Comment

Filed under Cognitive Psychology, Index, Memory, Perception

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 17, 2011 · 4:41 pm

Ethics, Theory Construction, and Compliance


Cover of "The APA Dictionary of Psycholog...

Cover of The APA Dictionary of Psychology

Ethics and Compliance

The APA Dictionary of Psychology (2007) defines the IRB as the, “abbreviation for INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD” (VandenBos) which quite honestly was not a term in my vocabulary before I began the PhD program. As it relates to the content area of  research in multicultural ethics, Ford (2006) establishes a connection between Ethics, Values, and Theory Construction, by stating, “Behavioral research is generally conducted to test specific hypothesis arising from psychological theories” which posits a corollary construct between what has been written in theory to what is done in practice for researchers. Therefore, and assumption is made that compliance lies somewhere between the theoretical didache of research and the utility found in the real life experience of practice.

One of the challenges that can be identified in the work of researchers is balance.  In a psychological research program the task is is to find common ground for the work of research within the ethical constructs of acceptable ethical principles is found in ethical codes, philosophical assumptions, and application of acceptable norms. Therefore, there are principles to guide the work of ethical research. The principles found in the code of ethics reflect generally accepted and identifiable area where violations can be possible.  Within the principles there are philosophical assumption that are expressed in way principle address concerns.  The intent is to speak to the needs of people who are made of diverse populations and cultural representations  Principles inform problem solving approaches with information to clarify reason and develop approaches to clarify what “should”or “ought” to be done in resolving a conflict.  The defining task is to identify the challenge and provide an assumptive reasoning that describes a process that is indicated; given that all things are equal in a perfect world.  The process describes the fundamental thinking process that guide understanding involved which calls attention to an underlying area of competence for psychological research, expressed in a design resolve a conflict.  Therefore, what is contained in a formula for response declares the basic principles that are a concerned couple with assumptions about how value is expressed in rank of importance i.e., the code of ethics, meaning, and intent of the ethical code.  In addition, the theoretical connection of what research means to the study of psychology is also firmly established in being able to understand, articulate, and connect the philosophical assumptions that inform ethical decisions in a reflective process that connects the philosophy to the lived experience of the researcher in psychology.  Ford (2006) describes the impact of the process upon the outcome of research by saying, “Researcher’s personal values might affect not only what issues they study, but also how they evaluate the evidence (i.e., data) they obtain” (p. 222)  As a result, the challenge can be understood in a development of a response that is informed not only by principles of facts, but also by the dynamic relationship of a developing interaction of the person and values of the researcher upon the object and persons involved in research. Ultimately, the buck must stop somewhere in decision making and that is where the determination is made to determine what is acceptable.  In Ford (2006), suitable standards are decided by, the IRB [who] is the official entity that reviews research proposals involving human participants to determine whether the studies are ethically acceptable” (223).  Therefore, the challenge that is present for researchers is to maintain diligence in understanding, evaluation, and application of acceptable, normative approaches to guarantee that participants are not endangered or harmed in the implementation of research in the practice of psychological inquiry.

The challenge of psychologists in maintaining fidelity to the principle of Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010) is how to respond with a meaningful thoughtful method of evaluating a broad range of possible ethical area of concern.  The principle places emphasis upon a need to utilize a thought process that utilizes a provisional review process that focuses upon principle, process, and potential.  An important component to the research done by psychologist is to engage in research that is based in a scientific validation process  which establishes empirical credibility to research.  In addition having a theoretical approach to validate ethical balance, provides a foundation that enhances evidence based approach to the methodology in the work of research. This can is realized within populations, groups, or individual to whom measuring risk is a very subjective process. Therefore, because there are times when ethical responses are difficult to measure, “researchers (and IRB’s) have an ethical obligation to calibrate the standards that will qualify a ‘minimal risk’” (225) which places a process in hand that goes beyond principle, philosophy and personal values, to a consensus of ideas and opinion which adds validity to apply what is known, understood and believed into a cogent and reasonable argument that is well supported.

What is observable and knowable about Ethics, theory construction, and compliance is that the code of ethics does in deed provide principle that can address a significant number of ethical concern, philosophical systems of thought can provide a rationale for decision making, but compliance is not always a clearly defined issue when dealing with areas that the code and philosophies do not adequately address to protect participants from harm.  So the value that is offered by the IRB is that it adds another voice that is constructed of expertise in the field of research that can ask the questions that can provide substantive consideration to what is in the best interest of research among psychology professionals

References

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010. (n.d.). Retrieved August 29, 2010, from Amercan Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

Ford, G. (2006). Ethical reasoning for mental health professionals. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications.

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Related Articles

1 Comment

Filed under Consulting, Ethics, I/O Psychology, Index

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,