Can You Trust What You Hear? Perceptual Misinformation Affects Recall Memory and Judgements of Guilt.

Greg J. Neil, Philip A. Higham, Simon Fox

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In most misinformation studies, participants are exposed to a to-be-remembered event, and then subsequently given misinformation in textual form. This misinformation impacts on people’s ability to accurately report the intitial event. In this paper, we present two experiments that explored a different approach to presenting misinformation. In the context of a murder suspect, the to-be-remembered event was audio of a police interview, whilst the misinformation was co-presented as subtitles with some words being different to, and more incriminating than, those that were actually said. We refer to this as perceptual misinformation. In Experiment 1, perceptual misinformation was inappropriately reported in a cued-recall test, and inflated participants’ ratings of how incriminating the audio was. Experiment 2 employed warnings in an attempt to mitigate the influence of perceptual misinformation. Warnings after the to-be-remembered event had no effect, whilst warnings before the event reduced the effect of perceptual misinformation for a sub-set of participants. Participants that noticed the discrepancy between the audio and the sub-titles were also less likely to judge the audio as incriminating. These results were considered in relation to existing theories underlying the misinformation effect, as well as the implication for the use of audio and text in applied contexts.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publication statusSubmitted - 2019

Fingerprint

Guilt
Communication
Aptitude
Homicide
Police
Interviews

Cite this

@article{da780ffa6db44829b6fb627e8e0548a0,
title = "Can You Trust What You Hear? Perceptual Misinformation Affects Recall Memory and Judgements of Guilt.",
abstract = "In most misinformation studies, participants are exposed to a to-be-remembered event, and then subsequently given misinformation in textual form. This misinformation impacts on people’s ability to accurately report the intitial event. In this paper, we present two experiments that explored a different approach to presenting misinformation. In the context of a murder suspect, the to-be-remembered event was audio of a police interview, whilst the misinformation was co-presented as subtitles with some words being different to, and more incriminating than, those that were actually said. We refer to this as perceptual misinformation. In Experiment 1, perceptual misinformation was inappropriately reported in a cued-recall test, and inflated participants’ ratings of how incriminating the audio was. Experiment 2 employed warnings in an attempt to mitigate the influence of perceptual misinformation. Warnings after the to-be-remembered event had no effect, whilst warnings before the event reduced the effect of perceptual misinformation for a sub-set of participants. Participants that noticed the discrepancy between the audio and the sub-titles were also less likely to judge the audio as incriminating. These results were considered in relation to existing theories underlying the misinformation effect, as well as the implication for the use of audio and text in applied contexts.",
author = "Neil, {Greg J.} and Higham, {Philip A.} and Simon Fox",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General",
issn = "0096-3445",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can You Trust What You Hear? Perceptual Misinformation Affects Recall Memory and Judgements of Guilt.

AU - Neil, Greg J.

AU - Higham, Philip A.

AU - Fox, Simon

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In most misinformation studies, participants are exposed to a to-be-remembered event, and then subsequently given misinformation in textual form. This misinformation impacts on people’s ability to accurately report the intitial event. In this paper, we present two experiments that explored a different approach to presenting misinformation. In the context of a murder suspect, the to-be-remembered event was audio of a police interview, whilst the misinformation was co-presented as subtitles with some words being different to, and more incriminating than, those that were actually said. We refer to this as perceptual misinformation. In Experiment 1, perceptual misinformation was inappropriately reported in a cued-recall test, and inflated participants’ ratings of how incriminating the audio was. Experiment 2 employed warnings in an attempt to mitigate the influence of perceptual misinformation. Warnings after the to-be-remembered event had no effect, whilst warnings before the event reduced the effect of perceptual misinformation for a sub-set of participants. Participants that noticed the discrepancy between the audio and the sub-titles were also less likely to judge the audio as incriminating. These results were considered in relation to existing theories underlying the misinformation effect, as well as the implication for the use of audio and text in applied contexts.

AB - In most misinformation studies, participants are exposed to a to-be-remembered event, and then subsequently given misinformation in textual form. This misinformation impacts on people’s ability to accurately report the intitial event. In this paper, we present two experiments that explored a different approach to presenting misinformation. In the context of a murder suspect, the to-be-remembered event was audio of a police interview, whilst the misinformation was co-presented as subtitles with some words being different to, and more incriminating than, those that were actually said. We refer to this as perceptual misinformation. In Experiment 1, perceptual misinformation was inappropriately reported in a cued-recall test, and inflated participants’ ratings of how incriminating the audio was. Experiment 2 employed warnings in an attempt to mitigate the influence of perceptual misinformation. Warnings after the to-be-remembered event had no effect, whilst warnings before the event reduced the effect of perceptual misinformation for a sub-set of participants. Participants that noticed the discrepancy between the audio and the sub-titles were also less likely to judge the audio as incriminating. These results were considered in relation to existing theories underlying the misinformation effect, as well as the implication for the use of audio and text in applied contexts.

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

SN - 0096-3445

ER -