The Reliability of Memory: Source

Confusion and the Misinformation Effect

Report by: Kishendri Moodley

Lab 124B (Demonstrator: Christina Sutherland)

15/04/2021
 Abstract
This study aimed to demonstrate how reconstructive processes may introduce inaccuracy in

memory recall and to look at the reliability of source memory. It was hypothesised that the

proportion of items attributed to the video would be higher for items that were from the post-

event questionnaire than for the new items. The experiment involved 20 participants

watching a video and then answering a post-event questionnaire which introduced

misinformation before doing a source memory test. Results found that the proportion of video

items attributed to the video was 0.9 followed by post-event items attributed to the video of

0.5 and lastly new items had a proportion 0.3 attributed to the video. This supported the

hypothesis as there was a higher proportion of post-event items attributed to the video than

the proportion of new items attributed to the video. This showed that misinformation after an

event can be confused with information from the event memory and may result in distorted

memory.
Memory is an integral part of everyday life. Memory enables the growth of relationships, the

learning of new skills and allows for the performance of various activities. The acquisition of

information is not enough to withhold the information as memory (Gleitman et al, 2010). For

this information to be stored in short term memory and long-term memory processes such as

encoding, storage and retrieval of information must occur (Bilkey, 2021).

Although memory goes through these various processes it is not as reliable as often

perceived, this is due to memory being an active reconstructive process that is susceptible to

change (Laboratory Notes: Psychology 111, 2021). Event memory is the initial memory of an

event (Department of Psychology, 2021). As event memory is generally broken (cannot

remember exactly everything) it is often modified by linking pieces of the initial memory

together and then adding more information from other sources to create what seems like an

accurate recall of the event memory (1974 cited in Passer & Smith 2019). It is also possible

for post-event information to cause modification of event memory. This occurrence is also

known as the misinformation effect in which misinformation acquired post-event from

elsewhere distorts the initial event memory (Department of Psychology, 2021). Source

memory is the initial source of the event and is often unreliable (Department of Psychology,

2021). This is due to source confusion which causes the misinformation effect and occurs

when one can retrieve event memory but is unable to determine the source memory (initial

source for event memory), (Passer & Smith 2019). A common scenario mentioned which

shows the connection between source confusion and the misinformation effect is eye-witness

testimonies.

It has been recognised that eyewitnesses can be misled by post-event information

which may result in distorted testimonies due to the misinformation effect (Passer & Smith

2019). This misinformation effect is caused by source confusion as a result of the way

leading questions are phrased or misinterpreting information sourced from elsewhere as one’s
own due to familiarity. Often the post-event information recalled as part of the event memory

can be used to make further links between incomplete pieces of the initial event memory as it

is familiar and makes sense (Bilkey 2021). Hence the eyewitness’s testimony is not accurate.

The Loftus and Palmer study in 1974 had been conducted to investigate the reliability

of source memory when involving eyewitness testimonies and what might make the memory

susceptible to distortion (Loftus & Palmer, 2021). In this study, it was hypothesised that

depending on how the words were phrased in the post-event questions the event memory may

be distorted (Loftus & Palmer, 2021). This study had involved two different experiments. The

first experiment was carried out by having different groups of participants watch a video of a

car accident. Afterwards, some participants were asked about the speed of the car at the time

of the accident (Bilkey, 20210. This question was phrased in various ways using different

verbs, one was “how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” and the other was

“how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” (Department of

Psychology, 2021). When comparing the results between them Loftus and Palmer (1974 cited

in Passer & Smith 2019) had found those given the question using the verb ‘hit’ had

answered a speed of 34 mph whereas those given the question using the word ‘smashed’

answered 41 mph (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). From these results, Loftus and Palmer (1974

cited in Passer & Smith 2019) concluded that depending on how a question is phrased even

changing one word can potentially cause the misinformation effect distorting memory

(Bilkey, 2021). A week later the second experiment was carried out using the same

participants. This time the experiment aimed to investigate the effect of post-event

information on source memory (Bilkey, 2021). Participants were asked this time whether

there was broken glass at the scene (there was not) and had to answer yes or no (Loftus and

Palmer, 1974). It was hypothesised that most participants who answered yes were asked the

question in the previous week using the word ‘smashed’(Loftus and Palmer, 1974). Results
from this experiment had shown that around 8% of those asked the question using ‘hit’ had

answered yes whilst in comparison around 16% of those asked the question using ‘smashed’

had answered yes (Bilkey, 2021). These results supported Loftus and Palmer's hypothesis and

it was thought to be due to the broken glass being correlated with more high-speed accidents

which the word ‘smashed’ gives the impression of (Loftus and Palmer, 1974). From this

study, Loftus and Palmer (1974) concluded post-event information can alter what is

remembered about an event memory as the two different sources merge resulting in source

confusion and distorted event memory. This is relevant to eyewitness testimonies as it shows

that source memory is not always reliable. Even by altering one word in the leading question,

the witness may remember the event differently and like the broken glass may further distort

their event memory to what would seem to be more accurate.

Another study that demonstrates the reconstructive nature of memory is ‘A picture is

worth a thousand lies’ designed by Wade et al (2002). This study aimed to investigate how

using false photographic information may affect memory as pictures are commonly said to be

the best way for capturing memories (Gerrie, Garry & Loftus, 2005). In this experiment

participants who had never been in a hot air balloon (verified by their families) were shown 3

photos, 2 real and 2 fake (Gerrie, Garry & Loftus, 2005). The make photo was constructed by

obtaining photos of the participants around 5 - 6 years from their families and then editing to

make it seem as if the participant went on a hot air balloon ride (Bilkey, 2021). Later, the

participants were given the 3 photos and were asked to describe any and every detail they

could remember (Bilkey, 2021). This was asked of each participant in 3 different interviews.

Findings from this study showed that in the first interview 35% of participants said they

could remember the fake photo and by the 3rd interview, this had increased to 50% (Bilkey,

2021). Furthermore, participants also showed that not only could they remember the fake

event they were able to describe it in detail. For example, one participant had gone into detail
about the burners and the temperature around them increasing (Bilkey, 2021). These findings

showed that photos can mislead memory and provide misinformation. As memory is a

reconstructive process photo can alter the initial memory through the misinformation effect.

The study in this report investigates Everyday Memory. This study aims to

demonstrate how reconstructive processes may introduce inaccuracy in memory recall and to

look at the reliability of source memory. This was investigated by conducting an experiment

in which participants were all shown the same video and had to complete the same 10 min

filler task before answering a post-event questionnaire. There was then a 2 min delay before

participants were instructed to complete a source memory test. For this experiment, it was

hypothesised that the proportion of items attributed to the video would be higher for items

that were from the post-event questionnaire than for the new items.

Method

Participants

For this experiment, a group of 20 first-year psychology students at The University of Otago

were recruited as participants. These participants were selected as it was part of their course

requirement. Within this group, there were 16 females and 4 males ranging from 17 to 37

years old.

Materials

Equipment used includes a re-enactment video of the 1977 Boeing 737 plane hijacking

displayed on a projector. Pens and paper were provided to participants for the filler task. Lab

computer desktops were used for the post-event questionnaire and the source memory test.

Pre-loaded software on the computer was also used to summarise the data collected from all

participants.
Procedure
The manipulated variable in this experiment was the source from which the memory test item

had originated from. The manipulated variable had 3 levels, from the video, from the post-

event questionnaire and new (questions with made-up detail, neither from the video or

questionnaire). The design of this experiment was within-subjects as all 20 participants had

experienced each of the 3 different levels of the manipulated variable (reference and change

words?). At the beginning of this experiment, all participants were shown the hijacking video.

After the video had finished participants were then instructed to perform a 10-minute filler

task. This filler task provided a delay between the video and the questionnaire. Following the

filler, task participants were told to sit at a desktop and enter their demographics before

beginning the post-event questionnaire. This questionnaire consisted of 24 yes or no

questions based on the video. An example of a question is “one of the hijackers made an

announcement on the public address system after the passengers had been told to put their

hands on their heads” (Department of Psychology, 2021). Some questions referenced a scene

in the video that was false, the purpose of this was to provide the participants with

misinformation. After each participant completed the questionnaire a 2-minute delay

generated by the computer was performed before participants began the source memory test.

This source memory test consisted of 30 questions 10 for each level of the manipulated

variable (10 from the video, 10 from the questionnaire and 10 new questions). Each of these

questions had 2 parts and questioned participants confidence that an item was from the video

and that it was from the questionnaire Participants answered on a Likert scale from definitely

yes to definitely no. An example is “one of the passengers had a knife in his briefcase”

(Department of Psychology, 2021). For each part participants answered by select their answer

on the screen using the computer mouse. When all participants finished the source memory

test, preloaded software on the desktops was used to summarise the results.
 Results

In this experiment, the measured variable was the proportion of items that were attributed to

the video (Department of Psychology, 2021). Results from each participant were calculated

by the computer software and then averaged across all participants.

Graph 1.

For all 3 levels in the source memory test participants had attriubuted items to the

hijacking video. Shown in the graph 1. the highest proportion of items attributed to the video

was 0.9 and was sourced from the video. Following this, 0.5 items attributed to the video

were sourced from the post event questionnaire. Lastly the proportion of items attributed to

the hijacking video that were sourced from the new items was 0.3.

Discussion

From this experiment, it was found that the proportion attributed to the video was highest

when the origin of items was the video. In contrast to this, the lowest proportion attributed to

the video was when the origin of items was new. The post-event memory had a higher

proportion attributed to the video than new; however, it was still lower than items sourced
from the video. This supports the hypothesis that the proportion of items attributed to the

video would be higher for items that were from the post-event questionnaire than for the new

items. In addition to this, these findings also show that source memory is unreliable and due

to the reconstructive nature of memory source confusion can occur leading to the

misinformation effect. These findings demonstrate this as if source memory was reliable the

misinformation provided through the post-event questionnaire and the new items in the

source memory test, would have had a proportion of 0 attributed to the video. Whilst the

items sourced from the video would have had a proportion attributed to the video of 1.

The event memory was sourced from the video, however, providing participants with

post-event misinformation had caused source confusion. The source of post-event

information was confused with initial memory and merged similar to the Loftus and Palmer

(1974) study into a new version distorting other aspects of the event memory through the

misinformation effect. This distortion of memory and using post-event information to fill in

memory gaps is consistent with the Wade et al (2002) study which found that participants

adopted a memory of being in a hot air balloon from the misinformation false photo and had

even ‘remembered’ details such as turning the burners on. Furthermore, this is also consistent

with the Loftus and Palmer (1974) study as in this present study source memory was shown

to be difficult to distinguish between the different item origins, similar to the source

confusion found when trying to distinguish details from the car accident video with post-

event misinformation caused by changing the verbs in the Loftus and Palmer study. The

consistent findings amongst the Loftus and Palmer (1974) study, the Wade et al (2002) study

and the present study show that memory is unreliable and may not always be an accurate

representation of the event memory as its reconstructive nature makes it susceptible to source

confusion and the misinformation effect.

 One limitation of the present study was that the event was experienced through a

video rather than first-hand. This meant that the experiment did not depict the event as it may

occur in real life. For the study this could have potentially meant different results as

experiencing an event first-hand more requires more attention and thinking about the

meaning of the information (Passer & Smith 2019). Paying attention and seeing the meaning

behind the event promotes better storage of memory (Passer & Smith 2019). As a result, the

participants may have had a stronger consolidation of memory to mitigate its susceptibility to

misinformation. Experimenting with a different event that could be experienced first-hand in

the lab rather than through a video could overcome this limitation. This could also show

results that more accurately depict real life and everyday memory.

Another limitation is the time frame the experiment was conducted within. As the

experiment was carried out during a 2-hour laboratory the gap between the video and the

source memory test was short. This is not realistic to real-life situations as in real life this

delay tends to be longer a period in which post-event misinformation can take effect. For

example, eyewitnesses are not questioned directly after the incident occurs. To overcome this

limitation the experiment could be conducted over two lab sessions with a week in between

to allow for more realistic results.

Future research into this field could involve investigating the effect of using auditory

sounds like a podcast without vision as the event instead of using videos or pictures. Vision is

important to memory as it helps strengthen its trace (Gleitman et al, 2010). Using just

auditory sounds as the event by removing vision will increase attention on the sounds,

however, because vision is needed for better memory what different participants can

remember may increase or decrease.

 An implication of this study is that everyday memory is unreliable. For memory to be

stored continual retrieval and consolidation of information is needed. Due to memory being

reconstructive, however, between retrieving information and reconsolidating information,

post-event misinformation from other sources may be confused as being from the original

event memory (Bilkey, 2021). As misinformation may merge with the initial memory to

create a new version of the event memory which includes false information. An example of

this is a court trial which may go ahead in multiple sessions. In between these sessions, jury

members may be exposed to post-event information outside of the courtroom from media and

other sources. Although they may try to be objective, as seen through the previous studies of

Loftus & Palmer (1974) and Wade et al (2002) source confusion may merge information

from the courtroom with post-event information. This may lead to jurors mistaking the event

memory of what was presented in court with misinformation, altering their view and opinion

on the case due to the misinformation effect.

An application to mitigate this would creating or tightening media regulations over

what information is covered and the way sentences and statements are phrased. Ensuring the

media is careful about wording is important, as seen through the Loftus and Palmer (1974)

study, words used in statements that provide post-event information can impact the memory

one has of the event. Regulating the way media phrase statements can aid in preventing jury

members from being misinformed and confusing information from the courtroom with

information from outside sources.

Overall, this study has shown that everyday memory is unreliable due to its

reconstructive nature. Source confusion and the misinformation effect exploit the

reconstructive nature of memory and can lead to distorted memories.

 References

Bilkey, D. (2021, March 10). Memory 3: Working Memory and Long-term memory: Lecture

6. Lecture presented in Psychology 111, University of Otago

Bilkey, D. (2021, March 10). Memory 4: Memory and forgetting: Lecture 7. Lecture

presented in Psychology 111, University of Otago

Department of Psychology (2021, March 15). Everyday Memory. PowerPoint slide presented

`in Psychology 111, University of Otago

Gleitman, H., Gross, J., Reisberg, D., (2010). Psychology (8th ed.). W.W Norton & Company.

Inc., New York, London.

Laboratory Notes: Psychology 111 (2021). Dunedin: Department of Psychology, University

of Otago.

Loftus, E.F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example

of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behaviour, 13 , 585–589

Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2019). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour (3rd

ed.). North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill Australia.