The effect of question type on resistance to misinformation about present and absent details

Summary The typical misinformation effect shows that accuracy is lower for details about which people received misleading compared to non‐misleading (control) information. In two experiments, we examined the misinformation effect for non‐witnessed details (i.e., absent). Three question types introdu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied cognitive psychology 2020-11, Vol.34 (6), p.1323-1334
Main Authors: Brubacher, Sonja P., Sharman, Stefanie J., Scoboria, Alan, Powell, Martine B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Acknowledgment
Burglary
don't know responses
Experiments
False information
false memories
interview
Interviews
leading questions
Memories
Memory
Misconceptions
Misinformation
misinformation effect
Questioning Techniques
Recognition (Psychology)
resistance
Resistance (Psychology)
Tests
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary The typical misinformation effect shows that accuracy is lower for details about which people received misleading compared to non‐misleading (control) information. In two experiments, we examined the misinformation effect for non‐witnessed details (i.e., absent). Three question types introduced control, misleading, and absent details (closed, closed‐detailed, and open questions) about a mock burglary video. On this misinformation test, participants' reports of absent details were less accurate than control details only when they were introduced using open questions. Misinformation effects in a subsequent recognition test were present for misleading details in both experiments, but for absent details only in Experiment 2. Experiment 2 also revealed that participants who avoided answering open questions containing misleading and absent details had more accurate memories for these details on the subsequent recognition test than participants who answered these questions. In both experiments, confidence was lowest for absent details. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
ISSN:0888-4080
1099-0720
DOI:10.1002/acp.3742