The “memory” misinformation effect may not be caused by memory failures: Exploring memory states of misinformed subjects

Open access


In experiments concerning the misinformation effect, participants first watch some original material, e.g. a video clip, and read a description that in the experimental group contains information inconsistent with the video clip. Afterwards, all participants answer questions about the video. Typically, the misled group more often reports erroneous misleading information than the non-misled one.Theoretical explanations of this effect are usually formulated in terms of the cognitive theories of memory. This article presents three experiments that demonstrate that the misinformation effect can occur even if the memory of the original and postevent materials is correct. In the experiments, after watching a video clip, reading a narrative about it, and answering questions about the video, the participants were debriefed and required to indicate questions in which they noticed differences between the video and the narrative, as well as provide answers about the original and postevent materials. A substantial number of the participants yielded to the misinformation effect in the memory test even though they had correct memory about the original (and postevent) materials. The discussion emphasizes the need of the social influence framework to explain these results. Key message: the misinformation effect is important for applied forensic eyewitness psychology. To get a better understanding of this effect, there is a need to study it not only in terms of the cognitive psychology of memory, but also from the perspective of social psychology, because in many cases witnesses give wrong answers even when remembering the correct information.

Ackil, J.K., & Zaragoza, M.S. (1995). Developmental differences in eyewitness suggestibility and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. Special issue: Early memory, 60(1), 57-83. doi:

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modifi cation and distortion of judgments. In: H. Guetzkow (ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

Ayers, M.S., & Reder, L.M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5(1), 1-21. doi:

Barber, N. (2008). How self-confidence and knowledge effects the sources of information selected during purchase situations (Doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Bekerian, D.A., & Bowers, J.N. (1983). Eyewitness testimony: Were we misled? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 139-145. doi:

Belli, R.F., Lindsay, D.S., Gales, M.S., & McCarthy, T.T. (1994). Memory impairment and source misattribution in postevent misinformation experim ents with short retention intervals. Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 40-54. doi:

Blank, H. (1998). Memory states and memory tasks. An integrative framework for eyewitness memory and suggestibility. Memory, 6(5), 481-529. doi:

Blank, H. (2005). Another look at retroactive and proactive interference: a quantitative analysis of conversion processes. Memory, 13(2), 200-24. doi:

Blank, H., Ost, J., Davies, J., Jones, G., Lambert, K., & Salmon, K. (2013). Comparing the infl uence of directly vs. indirectly encountered post-event misinformation on eyewitness remembering. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 635-641. doi:

Blank, H., & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(2), 77-88. doi:

Bobier, D.M. (2002). A measure of susceptibility to social infl uence: Scale development and validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa. doi:

Bowers, J.M., & Bekerian, D.A. (1984). When will postevent informationdistort eyewitness testimony? Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 466-472. doi:

Dalton, A.L., & Daneman, M. (2006). Social suggestibility to central and peripheral misinformation. Memory , 14(4), 486-501. doi:

Flowe, H.D., Finklea, K.M., & Ebbesen, E.B. (2009). Limitations of expert psychology testimony on eyewitness identifi cation. In: Cutler, B.L. (Ed.), Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identifi cation (pp. 201-221). New York: Oxford University Press.

González-Ordi, H., & Miguel-Tobal, J.J. (1999). Caracteristicas de la sugestionabilidad y su relacion con otras variables psicologicas. [Characteristics of suggestibility and its relationship with other psychological variables] Anales de Psicologia, 15(1), 57-75.

Greene, E., Flynn, M.S., & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(2), 207-219. doi:

Gudjonsson, G.H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(5), 535-540. doi:

Gudjonsson, G.H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Manual. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Heath, W.P., & Erickson, J.R. (1998). Memory for central and peripheral actions and props after varied postevent presentation. Legal and Criminol ogical Psychology, 3(2), 321-346. doi:

Kiesler, C.A., & Kiesler, S.B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Kossowska, M. (2003). Różnice indywidualne w potrzebie poznawczego domknięcia. [Individual differences in the need fo closure]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 46(4), 355-375.

Kruglanski, A.W., & Webster, D.M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “Freezing.” Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283. doi:

Lindsay, D.S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitness’s ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(6), 1077-1083. doi:

Lindsay, D.S. (2008). Source monitoring. In: H. L. Roediger, III (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory (pp. 325-348). Oxford: Elsevier.

Lindsay, D.S., & Johnson, M.K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 17(3), 349-358. doi:

Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572. doi:

Loftus, E.F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information. Memory and Cognition, 7(5), 368-374. doi:

Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.G., & Burns, H.J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(1), 19-31. doi:

MacBride, P.D., & Tuddenham, R.D. (1965). The influence of selfconfidence upon resistance of perceptual judgments to group pressure. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 60(1), 9-23. doi:

McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(1), 1-16. doi:

Meade, M.L., & Roediger, H.L. III (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 995-1009.

Metcalfe, J. (1990). Composite holographic associative recall model (CHARM) and blended memories in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 145-160. doi:

Mitchell, K.J., & Zaragoza, M.S. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and fales memory: The role of contextual variablity. Journal of Memory and Language, Special issue: Illusions of memory, 35(2), 246-260. doi:

Mitchell, K.J., & Zaragoza, M.S. (2001). Contextual overlap and eyewitness suggestibility. Memory and Cognition, 29(4), 616-626. doi:

Multhaup, K.S., de Leonardis, D.M., & Johnson, M.K. (1999). Source memory and eyewitness suggestibility in older adults. Journal of General Psychology, 126(1), 74-84. doi:

Neuschatz, J.S., Payne, D.G. Lampinen, J.M., & Toglia, M.P. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of warnings and the phenomenological characteristics of false memories. Memory, 9(1), 53-71. doi:

Niedźwieńska, A. (2002). Source monitoring errors in misinformation paradigm. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 33, 13-21.

Oeberst, A., & Blank, H. (2012). Undoing suggestive infl uence on memory: The reversibility of the eyewitness misinformation effect. Cognition, 125(2), 141-159. doi:

Orne, M.T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776-783. doi:

Pasek, T. Polskie tłumaczenie Kwestionariusza Sugestialności Ordiego i Tobala. [Polish translation of the Inventory of Suggestibility by Ordi and Tobal]. Unpublished manuscript.

Pickrell, J.E., Bernstein, D.M., & Loftus, E.F. (2004). The misinformation effect. In: R.F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 345-361). Hove, UK & NY: Psychology Press.

Polczyk, R. (2007). Mechanizmy efektu dezinformacji w kontekście zeznań świadka naocznego. [The mechanisms of the misinformation effetc in the context of eyewitness memory]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu JagiellońskieRoeb ers, C.M., & McConkey, K.M. (2003). Mental reinstatement of the misinformation context and the misinformation effect in children and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 477-493. doi:

Roebers, C.M., & Schneider, W. (2000). The impact of misleading questions on eyewitness memory in children and adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), 509-526. doi:

Roediger, H.L.I., Meade, M.L., & Bergman, E.T. (2001). Social contagionof memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 365-371.

Saunders, J., & MacLeod, M.D. (2002). New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 127-142. doi:

Szpitalak, M., Polak, M., Polczyk, R., & Dukała, K. (2016). The infl uence of social, para-social, and nonsocial misleading post-event sources on memory performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 185-197.

Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2015). Reinforced self-affi rmation as a method for reducing the eyewitness misinformation effect. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(10), 911-938. doi:

Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2016). Reinforced self-affi rmation and interrogative suggestibility. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(6), 512-520. doi:

Titcomb, A.L., & V.F. Reyna. (1995). Memory interference and misinformation effects. In: F.N. Dempster, & C.J. Brainerd (eds.), Interference and inhibition in cognition (pp. 263-294). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tousignant, J.P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information. Memory and Cognition, 14(4), 329-338. doi:

van Bergen, S., Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Beckers, R. (2010). Memory distrust and acceptance of misinformation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 885-896. doi:

Webster, D.M., & Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062. doi:

Wilk, M. (2004). Skala Ulegania Gudjonssona - właściwości psychometryczne i korelaty zbadane na próbie osób odbywających karę pozbawienia wolności. [Gudjonsson Compliance Scale - psychometric properties and correlates researched on a sample of prisoners]. Unpublished Master Thesis, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.

Wright, D.B., & Stroud, J.N. (1998). Memory quality and misinformation for peripheral and central objects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(2), 273-286. doi:

Zaragoza, M.S., Belli, R.S., & Payment, K.E. (2006). Misinformation effects and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. In: M. Garry & H. Hayne (Eds.), Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom (pp. 35-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zaragoza, M.S., & Koshmider, J.W. (1989). Misled subjects may know more than their performance implies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 246-255. doi:

Zaragoza, M.S., & Lane, S.M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 934-945. doi:

Polish Psychological Bulletin

The Journal of Committee for Psychological Sciences of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.185
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.258


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1402 1155 79
PDF Downloads 635 605 24