Running head: INCIDENT MEMORIES 1

Incident Memories

Gabrielle Cullen, Elizabeth Kasten & Liam Pommerich

Loras College
INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

Abstract

This research attempts to explain the distortion of memory by asking misleading questions due to

the misinformation effect. Literature continues to examine this phenomenon to understand how

easily memory can be deceived. This experiment included 18 students from Loras College. Nine

participants were randomly assigned to either the control or experimental conditions and

completed a series of tests to determine their accuracy in memory recall. Participants began by

completing a subjective memory rating scale and were then given a script and asked to remember

its content. Following the script participants completed an unrelated DRM task. Finally,

participants performed a free recall and answered either control or experimental questions. Data

was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests to determine statistical

significance. Results were expected to show a decrease in memory recall from those in the

experimental group due to the asking of purposefully misleading questions. Additional research

is needed to determine the specific role of the brain in false memories and under what conditions

this occurs.
INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

Incident Memories

Literature continues to examine the human memory and its capabilities including falsified

memories as a result of misinformation. Memory is where the mind stores and remembers

information. Episodic memory is the type of memory that allows for the capacity to re-

experience an event in the context in which it originally occurred (Squire, 2004). Since episodic

memories help individuals remember events, they are incredibly malleable. One’s

preconceptions of how the world works can be distorted by one’s experience of an event. We can

manipulate memory by trying to recollect the events of a certain experience. A person can recall

something that did not happen. Evidence shows that leading questions can create a false memory

based on how the brain interprets information. The leading candidate for false memory is “source

amnesia,” which is the inability to recall the origin of the memory of a given event. When the

source of a memory is forgotten, people tend to create a false representation of the true

information. Memory is very fragile and can be very easily be distorted.

Current literature concludes the creation of false memories can occur due to what has

since been defined as the “misinformation effect.” Cognitive psychologist, Elizabeth Loftus,

conducted several studies in the 1970s and found that misleading information about a previously

experienced event leads to the distortion of memory surrounding the event. (Loftus 1997). The

same study also found that the passage of time from the initial experience also contributes to the

ability to form false memories (Loftus 1997). Researchers Deese, Roediger and McDermott

(1995) found that using a DRM task can also lead to the creation of false memories through

presenting semantically related information. Based on these findings it is expected that this

research will show a greater inaccuracy in recall from those exposed to misleading information
INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

and that a DRM task can serve as an accurate indicator of the likelihood of creating false

memories.

Method

Participants

For this experiment, 18 students from Loras College were collected through convenience

sampling. Participants varied in age and sex; 8 males and 10 females participated. Subjects

reflected limited demographic representation, all individuals were white and between the ages of

18 and 21.

Materials

This experiment included two variables, control and experimental conditions. The initial

measurement used was a subjective memory scale. The scale ranged between 1 and 10, 1

indicating poor memory and 10 indicating exceptional memory. An observer manufactured script

was also used and included thirty specific details that followed a story-like format. Participants

were given as much time as necessary to completely read through this script. Following, a DRM

task from Deese, Roediger and McDermott (1995) was used to identify the participant’s

likelihood of creating a false memory. Observers had their own document that included the

specific details from one to thirty as they appeared in the story, used to record free recall results.

The final materials used were a set of control and experimental questions, one for each detail

from the script. The experimental questions used exaggeration and false information whereas the

control questions only included straight-forward evidence.

Procedure

This experiment followed a between-subjects design. Before performing any research all

participants were required to read and sign a consent form indicating their participation in this
INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

study. Then participants were then asked to subjectively rate their memory using a scale that

ranged from 1 to 10, 1 indicating poor memory and 10 indicating exceptional memory.

Following this, all subjects read an observer manufactured script that included 30 details and

followed a story-like format. Participants were told to read with details in mind and that they

would not be able to review the script during any other portion of the experiment. After

participants finished reading, they completed an unrelated DRM task from, Deese, Roediger and

McDermott (1995). In this portion of the experiment research observers read a list of 15

semantically related words and asked participants to write as many as they could remember.

Words were read one second at a time and participants could not being writing until the entire

list had been read. Data from this task included how many words they were able to remember

and whether or not the participants stated the critical lure. Following the DRM observers asked

participants to recall as many details from the story as possible. Answers were to be specific and

only recorded as correct when they matched the original list of details. Observers recorded their

score out of 30. Finally, participants were asked 30 questions in relation to the details from the

story and their scores were recorded. Observers were looking for specific answers that did not

deviate from the words used in the initial script. Control participants were asked 30 questions

that were straightforward and did not have any element of deception. Experimental participants

were asked 30 questions that all had some form of deception either through purposeful

exaggeration or false information embedded within the questions. Each measurement of data

from both groups was recorded individually. Following all testing participants were debriefed to

ease any frustration and clear any confusion while maintaining all confidentiality.
INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

Results

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test found there to be no significant difference

between the experimental and control (E M=16.89, SD=5.04; M=17.78, SD=4.44) scores in

assessing free recall, F(1, 16)= 0.158, p=0.696. The ANOVA also revealed no significant

difference between these populations (E M=22.89, SD=4.28; C M=24.56, SD= 3.17) when

analyzing probed questions, F(1, 16)= .881, p=.362. When analyzing the correlation between

subjective memory and free recall a t-test revealed t=(16), p=(0.0278) meaning there was a

significant correlation between the two. Reversely the t-test showed no significant correlation

between subjective memory and probed questions, t=(16), p=(0.3746).

Discussion

Although it was predicted that the results would indicate greater likelihood of false

memories from those in the experimental conditions, data fails to reject the null hypothesis.

There was no significant difference between the control and experimental populations in regards

to either the free recall or probed questions. The only test of significance was between subjective

memory and free recall, meaning their understanding of their own memory positively correlated

with their free recall performance. Those who rated themselves as having a better memory

scored higher and those who rated themselves as having a poor memory scored lower. There was

no significant correlation between subjective memory and the probed questions. Additionally,

the participants were asked to perform the free recall directly after completing the DRM task and

it is uncertain as to whether or not this allotted enough time to see accurate results. As mentioned

previously, the passage of time is a main component in contributing to the formation of false

memories (Loftus, 1997). Perhaps more time was necessary between reading the script and

performing the memory tests to create the conditions needed for false memory formation. The
INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

DRM may have also been unreliable in serving as an accurate predictor of their likelihood to

create false memories because there was no form of persuasion being used, unlike the conditions

used in the experimental questions. Future research should look more closely at what specific

conditions are necessary to produce false memories as well as understand the brain’s role in the

formation of these memories.

INCIDENT MEMORIES 2

References

Loftus, E. F. (1997). Creating false memories. Scientific American. 277 (3), 73-75.

Roediger,Henry L., I.,II, & McDermott, K. B. (1999). False alarms and false memories.

Psychological Review, 106(2), 406-410.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1037/0033-295X.106.2.406

Squire. L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective.

Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 171-177.