a Department of Psychology , University of Otago , Dunedin , New Zealand.
Memory. 2014;22(3):243-55. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2013.778291. Epub 2013 Mar 22.
Although some research suggests that misinformation provided by a co-witness could be more influential than that obtained from other sources, most of this research has compared the effect of co-witness information against non-social forms of misinformation only. To better understand the influence of co-witnesses we compared the influence of co-witness misinformation with the influence of misinformation provided by an interviewer. Across two experiments using the MORI paradigm we found no evidence that a co-witness is particularly influential relative to another social source of post-event misinformation. In fact, the source of the misinformation delivered by our interviewer was less likely to be correctly recalled than the source of the misinformation delivered by a co-witness. There was some evidence that misinformation delivered by both a co-witness and an interviewer has a stronger effect on witnesses' accuracy and confidence than misinformation obtained from either source alone. Finally, our results suggest that the opportunity to provide an early individual memory account might protect against the effect of subsequently-encountered co-witness misinformation. These results have important implications for the way that criminal investigations are conducted.
尽管一些研究表明,共同证人提供的错误信息可能比其他来源的错误信息更具影响力,但这些研究大多只比较了共同证人信息与非社交形式的错误信息的影响。为了更好地理解共同证人的影响,我们将共同证人错误信息的影响与采访者提供的错误信息的影响进行了比较。通过使用 MORI 范式进行的两项实验,我们没有发现证据表明共同证人比另一个社交来源的事后错误信息更具影响力。事实上,我们的采访者提供的错误信息来源比共同证人提供的错误信息来源更不容易被正确回忆。有一些证据表明,共同证人和采访者提供的错误信息比单独从任何一个来源获得的错误信息对证人的准确性和信心有更强的影响。最后,我们的结果表明,提供早期个人记忆陈述的机会可能有助于防止随后遇到的共同证人错误信息的影响。这些结果对犯罪调查的方式具有重要意义。