Memory

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/pmem20

Witnesses’ susceptibility to misleading post-event

information delivered in a social media-style video

Stefanie J. Sharman, Meaghan C. Danby & Atticus D. Gray

To cite this article: Stefanie J. Sharman, Meaghan C. Danby & Atticus D. Gray (2024) Witnesses’
susceptibility to misleading post-event information delivered in a social media-style video,
Memory, 32:1, 100-110, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2023.2294692

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2294692

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 26 Dec 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 678

View related articles

View Crossmark data

This article has been awarded the Centre

for Open Science 'Open Data' badge.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20
MEMORY
2024, VOL. 32, NO. 1, 100–110
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2294692

BRIEF REPORT

Witnesses’ susceptibility to misleading post-event information delivered in a

social media-style video
Stefanie J. Sharman , Meaghan C. Danby and Atticus D. Gray
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In many criminal cases, outcomes rely on eyewitness evidence. Exposure to misleading Received 24 July 2023
information after an event reduces the accuracy of witnesses’ memories. In some Accepted 4 December 2023
circumstances, warnings about misinformation can protect witnesses. As social media is a
KEYWORDS
growing source of misleading information, this study examined the effect of misleading Misinformation effect; pre-
post-event information delivered via a social media-style video, as well as the utility of a warnings; suggestibility;
minimal versus detailed warning. Participants (N = 145) watched a video showing an social media; eyewitness
electrician stealing items from a client’s home. Next, they received one of three pre-warnings memory
regarding forthcoming misleading information: a minimal warning indicating that caution
should be taken, a detailed warning specifying the presence of misleading information, or
no warning. Participants received the misleading information via a social media video or a
standard text-based narrative. Finally, they completed a recognition test. Although delivery
method did not affect errors for misleading items, detailed warnings were only effective
against text-based misleading information. Participants were more confident about their
correct than incorrect responses for misleading items; confidence was not affected by
delivery method or warning. This experiment is the first to demonstrate people’s
susceptibility to misleading post-event information delivered in a social media-style video
using an eyewitness paradigm.

When people receive misleading or incorrect post-event
information about an event that they have experienced,
the accuracy of their memories for the original event is
reduced; this phenomenon is known as the misinforma-
tion effect (see Loftus, 2005, for a review). This effect has
important implications for the justice system as eyewitness
testimony is one of the most powerful forms of evidence
(Williams et al., 1992). Witnesses may encounter mislead-
ing information through any number of sources, including
other witnesses, the questions asked by investigative inter-
viewers, and media reports (e.g., Gabbert et al., 2012;
Goodwin et al., 2017; Sharman & Powell, 2012). One poten-
tial source of misleading information that has become
more prevalent over recent years is social media. For
example, in a study of the spread of verified true and
false news stories in Twitter from 2006 to 2017, Vosoughi
et al. (2018) found that false news stories spread faster
and further than true news stories, particularly for political
news stories. There are documented cases in which wit-
nesses to crimes searched for suspected offenders on
social media, which led to people being identified and
charged (e.g., R v Alexander [2013]; Strass v Police
[2013]). However, if witnesses view photos of innocent
people, these photos may act as misleading information
and affect witnesses’ memories of the offender (Eisen
et al., 2020).
Experiments investigating the misinformation effect
have typically used a three-stage procedure (e.g., Loftus
et al., 1978; Takarangi et al., 2006). First, participants
experience an event, often in the form of watching a
video. Next, they are given a written description of the
event and told that this description was provided by
another participant. This description contains key details
from the original event, some of which are described incor-
rectly (misleading items). For example, the logo on a van
might be described as an “AJs electricians” logo, when in
fact it was an “RJ’s electricians” logo. Other details are
described without any misleading information (control
items). For example, the logo on a van might be described
as a “logo”, without any additional information. Third, par-
ticipants are given a memory test about the original event.
For example, if given a recognition test, they might be

CONTACT Stefanie J. Sharman stefanie.sharman@deakin.edu.au School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC
3125, Australia
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or
built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

asked to choose between the control item and the mis-
leading item (“Did the logo say AJ’s electricians or RJ’s elec-
tricians?”). Results show that participants’ accuracy is lower
for misleading items than control items (Sharman &
Powell, 2012; Takarangi et al., 2006). The Source Monitor-
ing Framework (SMF; Johnson et al., 1993; Mitchell &
Johnson, 2000) can be used to explain the misinformation
effect. During the memory test, participants need to
monitor the source of the remembered details and
decide whether they came from the original event or
from the post-event description. Often, this monitoring
fails and participants misattribute the misleading items
from the post-event description to the original event
(Lindsay & Johnson, 1989; Rantzen & Markham, 1992).
Video-sharing social media websites like TikTok,
YouTube and Instagram are fast becoming a leading
source of information for many people (Anderson, 2015;
Chen et al., 2021), so establishing the effects of misinfor-
mation delivery via social media videos is particularly
important. In the current experiment, we examined the
effects of providing participants with misleading post-
event information in a standard text-based narrative or
in a social media-style video. To date, no studies have
examined the effects of misleading information delivered
through social media videos on witnesses’ memory,
although they have examined other sources of misleading
information, including co-witnesses and photos (see, for
example, Greene et al., 2022; Paterson & Kemp, 2006). In
fact, we only found one study that considered if mislead-
ing information delivered in video format can affect
memory reports (compared to no misinformation; Cullen
et al., 2021). In this study, participants watched a video
of a simulated crime; later, some participants watched a
re-enactment video containing misleading items while
other participants did not. Participants who watched the
re-enactment video reported more misleading items
than those who did not watch it, demonstrating that mis-
leading information delivered in a video affects partici-
pants’ memory reports.
Previous communications research examining the
credibility of fake news stories can provide us some
ideas about how video versus text-based misinformation
may affect participants’ memory reports. Experimental
findings have shown that when people are exposed to
fake news via video or text, they rate the credibility of
fake news in videos higher than fake news in text (e.g.,
Lee & Shin, 2022; Sundar et al., 2021; Tseng et al., 2022).
This effect is likely due to participants relying on a
“seeing is believing” heuristic when processing the misin-
formation. Both the Modality–Agency–Interactivity–Navig-
ability (MAIN) Model (Sundar, 2008) and the Limited
Capacity Model (Lang, 2000) suggest that video infor-
mation is processed more heuristically than text-based
information because the multi-media format of video
may overwhelm people’s finite information-processing
resources. Text-based information, on the other hand,
which consists of just one medium (text) is processed
MEMORY 101
more systematically. Overall, this literature suggests that
delivering misinformation via videos may be more dama-
ging to witnesses’ memory accuracy (i.e., create a larger
misinformation effect) than delivering misinformation via
text.
In general, decisions that rely on more superficial or
heuristic processing are less accurate than those that rely
on more effortful or systematic processing (Hekkanen &
McEvoy, 2002; Lindsay & Johnson, 1989; Zaragoza &
Lane, 1994). Nonetheless, people’s reliance on heuristic
processing can be overcome when they are motivated to
process the information more effortfully. For example,
Sundar et al. (2021) found that participants rated fake
news stories as more credible – and had a larger intention
to share the story – when they were presented via videos
rather than audio or text delivery methods, which did not
differ from each other. However, this result did not occur
for participants who rated the content of the news
stories as more personally important to them. Sundar
et al. reasoned that participants who rated the stories
more personally important were more likely to systemati-
cally process the stories and less likely to rely on heuristics
than participants who did not rate the stories as personally
important. As a result, participants who rated the stories as
more personally important did not find them more cred-
ible when presented in video format, compared to audio
or text. This finding fits with Chaiken’s (1980) proposal
that people will typically rely on a heuristic strategy to
reduce the amount of cognitive effort they spend proces-
sing information; however, they will switch to a more sys-
tematic strategy when they think it is important to make
an accurate judgment.
In our experiment, we expected our participants to rely
predominantly on heuristic processing in their source
monitoring decisions. However, we also expected them
to make source decisions more systematically when the
task requirements encouraged them to do so (Lindsay &
Johnson, 1989). Research has shown that participants in
misinformation experiments can be encouraged to use
more systematic processing and adopt more stringent
source monitoring criteria at test (e.g., Parker et al.,
2008). Indeed, when participants are given a post-
warning – that is, they are given a warning that they
have been exposed to misleading information after their
exposure to it and before taking the memory test – their
test accuracy improves (see Blank & Launay, 2014, for a
review). This warning reduces the misinformation effect
by encouraging people to examine their memories more
closely when deciding whether the characteristics con-
tained in each memory are indicative of the post-event
description or of the original event (Eakin et al., 2003;
Oeberst & Blank, 2012). Post-warnings are generally more
ecologically valid than pre-warnings (which are given
before participants are exposed to the misleading infor-
mation), as investigative interviewers do not usually
know whether witnesses have encountered misleading
information after witnessing an event – they can only
102 S. J. SHARMAN ET AL.
warn witnesses before they are interviewed (see also Ech-
terhoff et al., 2005). It is usually only in experimental
designs that researchers are aware that participants will
encounter misleading information and can warn them in
advance about it.
Social media videos present one of the few real-world
situations in which pre-warnings are given: social media
videos sometimes appear with warnings about the vera-
city of their content and these warnings appear at the
beginning of the videos. Research examining the effective-
ness of pre-warnings given before text-based misinforma-
tion suggests that they reduce the misinformation effect
(e.g., Chambers & Zaragoza, 2001; Greene et al., 1982; Kar-
anian et al., 2020). Pre-warnings may affect both the
encoding and retrieval of information. First, at encoding,
pre-warnings may encourage participants to scrutinise
the post-event information more carefully for details that
are different from the original event (Bailey et al., 2021;
Greene et al., 1982; Karanian et al., 2020). For example,
Greene et al. (1982) found that participants who were
pre-warned read a text-based event description containing
misleading information more slowly than participants who
were not pre-warned. Slowing down their reading time
may have provided participants with a greater opportunity
to detect discrepancies between the original event and the
post-event description, thus reducing the misinformation
effect (Tousignant et al., 1986). Second, at retrieval, pre-
warnings may encourage participants to make slower
and more deliberate source monitoring decisions, which
may increase the accuracy of those decisions (Blank &
Launay, 2014; Karanian et al., 2020).
In our study, we exposed participants to one of two
delivery methods for misleading information (a text-
based narrative or a social media-style video) and tested
the effects of three types of pre-warning on participants’
memory reports: no warning, a minimal warning, or a
detailed warning. The minimal warning was based on
the warning applied to TikTok videos that fact-checkers
are unable to verify as correct or not: “Caution: Video
flagged for unverified content”. In contrast, our detailed
warning stated that misleading information was present
in the post-event information, discredited the source of
the misleading information, and contained an explanation
about why misleading information was included in our
experiment. Our detailed warning was based on Blank
and Launay’s (2014) meta-analysis on post-warning
studies. It was appropriate to use the wording from post-
warnings as the pre-warning in our experiment as the
main difference between the two is the timing of the
warning (see also Karanian et al., 2020).
We expected participants to rely predominantly on
heuristic processing when monitoring the source of their
memories at test, regardless of whether they were
exposed to misleading post-event information in a video
or in text. However, because video-based information is
processed more shallowly than text-based information,
we predicted that participants in the video condition
should make more errors for misleading items than partici-
pants in the text condition. We predicted that, for both
conditions, the minimal warning should perform similarly
to no warning as the minimal warning does not specify
that misleading information is present or provide an expla-
nation about why it may be there. In contrast, the detailed
warning should encourage participants to process the
post-event information systematically, which – in turn –
should enhance participants’ ability to detect differences
between the original event and the post-event infor-
mation (Tousignant et al., 1986). However, we might
expect that our video participants should find it more
difficult to detect discrepancies (compared to our text par-
ticipants) as our video participants were not in control of
the speed at which they watched the post-event infor-
mation – it was shown at one set pace. In comparison,
our text participants could slow down their reading,
which should provide them with a greater opportunity
to detect discrepancies between the original event and
the post-event narrative (Greene et al., 1982; Tousignant
et al., 1986). Therefore, we also predicted that the detailed
warning should be less effective in helping participants to
avoid making errors when they are given misleading infor-
mation in a video compared to a text-based narrative. In
other words, we expected our video participants to make
more errors than our text participants when they were
given a detailed warning.
Finally, we explored whether participants’ confidence in
their responses on the memory test were affected by the
delivery method and the level of warning that participants
received. We predicted that participants should show the
“signature pattern of misinformation” (p. 417, Higham
et al., 2017); that is, in addition to making more errors
about misleading items, they should be more confident
about their responses for these items (see also Tomes &
Katz, 2000; Weingardt et al., 1994). We also predicted
that a detailed warning should reduce participants’ confi-
dence for misleading items whereas the minimal
warning should have no effect (see Higham et al., 2017
for similar results). We made no prediction about delivery
method on confidence or the interaction between delivery
method and warning.
Method
Participants
One hundred and forty-five participants completed the
experiment. Forty-two percent of participants were aged
18–29 years, 29% were aged 30–39 years, 19% were
aged 40–49 years and 10% were aged 50 years and over.
One hundred participants identified as female, 41 ident-
ified as male and 4 participants identified as non-binary.
A posthoc power analysis revealed that the power we
had to detect the interaction between delivery method
and warning was .73.

Fifty-nine percent of participants were undergraduate
students recruited through a university, and 41% of partici-
pants were recruited through Prolific. There was no differ-
ence in age categories of participants recruited from the
student population or Prolific, χ2 (145, df = 3) = 3.59, p
= .309. There was a difference in gender:1 a greater pro-
portion of students identified as female (82.1%) than the
proportion from Prolific (54.4%), χ2 (141, df = 1) = 12.69,
p < .001, Cramer’s V = .30.
Design
The design of the experiment was a 2 (post-event infor-
mation: misleading, control) × 2 (delivery method: video,
text) × 3 (warning: none, minimal, detailed). Post-event
information was a within-subjects factor; delivery
method and warning were between-subjects factors.
Memory performance was examined through the
number of errors that participants made in response to
the critical items on the recognition test. Confidence was
examined through participants’ mean confidence ratings
to these same critical items on the recognition test.
Materials
Stimulus video. Participants watched a 6 min 28 s video
showing an electrician (named Eric) working in a client’s
house; he looked through their belongings and stole
some items (Takarangi et al., 2006). It has been used in
many past misinformation experiments (e.g., Battista
et al., 2020; Otgaar et al., 2014; Sharman & Powell, 2012).
The video contained eight critical details (magazine title,
picture on the wall, whether the bed was made, the
colour of a cap, the name of the electrician’s company,
how Eric checked the time, the colour of a mug, and the
soft drink that Eric drank).
Warning. Participants were randomly allocated to
receive one of three warnings: no warning, minimal
warning, or detailed warning. In the no warning condition,
participants did not receive a warning. Video participants
were told: “On the next page you will see an account of
Eric’s actions, recorded by a previous participant in this
experiment. Please watch it carefully”. Text participants
were told: “On the next page you will read an account of
Eric’s actions, written by a previous participant in this
experiment. Please read it carefully”.
Participants in the minimal warning condition received
the above information, along with a warning based on
TikTok’s warning for videos whose content could not be
verified by factcheckers. Video participants were told,
“Caution: the following video has been flagged for unver-
ified content”. Text participants were told, “Caution: the
following text description has been flagged for unverified
content”.
Participants in the detailed warning condition received
the same information as participants in the no warning
MEMORY 103
condition, followed by a warning that was based on
Blank and Launay’s (2014) meta-analysis on post-warning
studies; it was specifically adapted from Oeberst and
Blank’s (2012) study. Video participants were told:
Please read the following information carefully. This exper-
iment is about the psychology of eyewitness memory and
the influence of incorrect post-event information. Imagine
you had witnessed a traffic accident. Later, you might
discuss it with other witnesses or read an article about it in
the newspaper. Some details of the accident may be missing
in such reports, and others may be wrong, without you necess-
arily noticing this at first. In this experiment, we are simulating
such a situation: You watched a video about Eric the electri-
cian, and—on the next page—you will see a TikTok video
about Eric’s actions, which was purportedly provided by a pre-
vious participant in this experiment. In fact, this TikTok video
was made by the researchers. In a later recognition test, you
will be asked questions about the electrician video. When
answering the questions, please rely exclusively on your
memory of the electrician video, rather than any information
from the TikTok video.
Text participants received the same warning, except that
the phrase “TikTok video” was replaced with “text
description”.
Post-event information. Participants were randomly
allocated to receive post-event information in a 3-min
social media-style video or a 445-word text-based narra-
tive. The video was a “reaction” video in which a female
actor reacted while watching the video of Eric the electri-
cian; it appeared to be hosted on the TikTok platform
because it had a frame consisting of the standard icons
on the right-hand side and across the bottom of the
screen. Participants did not see any of the original electri-
cian video again in the social media-style video. The social
media-style video, as well as the text-based narrative, are
both available through the OSF: https://osf.io/7c8v2/?
view_only = f516ec2606d844cd97f906393f0a4237.
Both the video and the text-based narrative contained
the same information, including the eight critical items
from the electrician video. Half of the critical items were
described in a misleading way (misleading items), which
provided contradictory information to what participants
had seen in the electrician video. For example, in the
video, Eric looked at a picture of the Eiffel Tower on the
wall. Participants who received misleading information
for this item were told that “Eric looked at a picture of
the Leaning Tower”. The other four critical items (control
items) were described using neutral language such that
they did not contain any specific information, such as
“Eric drank a soft drink”.
Recognition test. The recognition test consisted of 20
questions in which participants chose between two
options. Eight of the questions were about the critical
details; the other 12 questions were about non-critical
details and were included so that participants did not
become suspicious about the other questions. For
example, one of the questions about non-critical details
asked participants to decide whether the tool that Eric
104 S. J. SHARMAN ET AL.
used in the kitchen was pliers or a screwdriver. Four of the
eight critical questions were about misleading items; the
other four critical questions were about control items. For
all eight questions, participants chose between the correct
detail from the electrician video and the incorrect detail
that was introduced in the post-event information. For
example, participants were asked, “In the lounge, the
picture Eric looked at was the _______Tower” and they
were given the response options of (a) Eiffel and (b)
Leaning. Participants’ error scores were calculated as
described below. For all questions, participants rated their
confidence in their answer from 1 (not at all confident) to 5
(very confident).
Procedure
Ethics approval for this study was granted from Deakin Uni-
versity’s ethics committee (approval number HEAG-H
159_2022). Participants were initially recruited through an
undergraduate cognitive psychology unit; they responded
to an advertisement about the experiment. Participants
were not compensated for their time. Another 60 partici-
pants were recruited through Prolific; they were compen-
sated £3 for their participation. How participants were
recruited did not affect the number of errors they made
on the memory test, F(1, 143) = 0.80, p = .374, h2p = .006.
Participants followed the same procedure. They com-
pleted the online experiment individually at a time and
location of their choosing. First, they responded to an
advertisement for a study “investigating the effects of
post-event information on people’s memories for wit-
nessed events”. Participants were required to be aged
between 18 and 65 years and have fluent English to partici-
pate. Next, they provided informed consent. Participants
then watched the stimulus video before completing a 3-
min distractor task in which they matched number pairs.
This task was given to prevent participants from mentally
rehearsing any details from the video. Next, participants
were randomly assigned to the no warning (n = 48),
minimal warning (n = 49) or detailed warning (n = 48) con-
dition. After reading the corresponding warning infor-
mation, participants received the post-event information.
They were randomly assigned to receive the post-event
information in a video (n = 73) or in a text-based narrative
(n = 72). After watching the video or reading the narrative,
participants completed a 1-min distractor task in which
they put letters in alphabetical order. This task was given
to prevent participants from mentally rehearsing any
details from the post-event information. After the distrac-
tor task, participants completed the recognition test.
Finally, all participants were debriefed about the purpose
of the experiment.
Data scoring
Responses to the eight critical items on the recognition
test were examined. For the four misleading items, we
calculated the total number of errors that participants
made. This value ranged from 0 (in which participants
did not make any errors; i.e., they always selected the
correct detail from the original electrician video) to 4 (in
which participants made errors for all four items; i.e.,
they always selected the detail suggested in the misinfor-
mation). Similarly, for the four control items, we calculated
participants’ number of errors. This could range from 0 (in
which participants did not make any errors; i.e., they
always selected the correct detail from the original electri-
cian video) to 4 (in which participants made errors for all
questions; i.e., they always selected the detail that was
not presented in the original video). We only analysed
the number of errors that participants made – and not
their number of correct responses – because the number
of correct responses can be inferred from the number of
errors (i.e., the number of correct responses can always
be determined by subtracting the number of errors from
a total of four). For example, if a participant made two
errors for misleading items and one error for control
items, then the participant made two correct responses
for misleading items and three correct responses for
control items. Data are available from https://osf.io/
7c8v2/?view_only = f516ec2606d844cd97f906393f0a4237.
Results
We present the results in two sections. First, we analysed
the errors that participants made for the critical items in
the recognition test. Second, we analysed participants’
confidence ratings for these same items.
Errors
Overall, participants made more errors for misleading
items (M = 1.48, SD = 1.03) than control items (M = 0.77,
SD = 0.72), t(144) = 7.45, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .619. In
other words, they showed the misinformation effect.
Before examining the effects of misleading information
on participants’ memories, we first determined whether
there was any difference between conditions for control
items. We conducted a 2 (delivery method: video, text) ×
3 (warning: none, minimal, detailed) ANOVA on partici-
pants’ errors for control items. The main effects for delivery
method and warning were not significant, F(1, 139) = 0.06,
p = .809, h2p < .001 and F(2, 139) = 2.49, p = .087, h2p = .035,
respectively. The interaction between delivery method
and warning was also not significant, F(2, 139) = 0.10, p
= .909, h2p = .001. Therefore, we did not consider partici-
pants’ errors for control items any further.
To determine whether delivery method and warning
affected participants’ errors for misleading items, we con-
ducted a 2 (delivery method: video, text) × 3 (warning:
none, minimal, detailed) ANOVA. Neither the main effect
for delivery method nor the main effect for warning con-
dition was significant, F(1, 139) = 1.66, p = .200, h2p = .012
and F(2, 139) = 0.63, p = .538, h2p = .009, respectively.

Figure 1. Mean errors for misleading items in the text and video conditions
displayed by warning type. Note that bars are standard error bars.
However, there was a significant two-way interaction
between delivery method and warning, F(2, 139) = 3.93,
p = .022, h2p = .054 (see Figure 1). To follow-up the inter-
action, three independent samples t-tests were conducted
comparing the number of errors that participants made
when the post-event information was delivered via text
or video for each of level of warning. When there was no
warning, participants in the text and video conditions
made a similar number of errors for misleading items, t
(46) = 0.15, p = .883, d = .043. When there was a minimal
warning, participants in the text and video conditions
made a similar number of errors for misleading items, t
(47) = 0.59, p = .558, d = .169. However, when there was a
detailed warning, there was a significant difference
between the two conditions. Participants in the text con-
dition made fewer errors for misleading items than partici-
pants in the video condition, t(46) = 3.26, p = .002, d = .941.
To examine whether the warning that participants in
the text condition were given affected their reading
speed, we examined how long they spent on the page
showing the post-event information (as a proxy). Overall,
participants spent an average of 103 s on this page (SD
= 73); it was not affected by type of warning, F(2, 71) =
0.67, p = .513, h2p = .019.
Confidence
Overall, participants were more confident about mislead-
ing items (M = 3.62, SD = 0.75) than control items (M =
3.23, SD = 0.75), t(144) = 5.27, p < .001, d = .437. We first
determined whether there was any difference in confi-
dence ratings between conditions for control items. We
conducted a 2 (delivery method: video, text) × 3
(warning: none, minimal, detailed) ANOVA on participants’
confidence for control items. The main effects for delivery
method and warning were not significant, F(1, 139) = 1.58,
p = .212, h2p = .011 and F(2, 139) = 1.00, p = .371, h2p = .014,
respectively. The interaction between delivery method
and warning was also not significant, F(2, 139) = 1.90, p
= .153, h2p = .027.
To determine whether delivery method and warning
affected participants’ confidence for misleading items,
MEMORY 105
Figure 2. Mean confidence for misleading items in the text and video con-
ditions displayed by warning type. Note that bars are standard error bars.
we conducted a 2 (delivery method: video, text) × 3
(warning: none, minimal, detailed) ANOVA. Neither the
main effect for delivery method nor the main effect for
warning condition was significant, F(1, 139) = 0.01, p
= .920, h2p < .001 and F(2, 139) = 2.28, p = .106, h2p = .032,
respectively. However, the two-way interaction between
delivery method and warning was approaching signifi-
cance, F(2, 139) = 2.80, p = .064, h2p = .039 (see Figure 2).
We explored this potential interaction with three indepen-
dent samples t-tests comparing participants’ confidence
when the post-event information was delivered via text
or video for each of level of warning. When there was no
warning, participants in the video condition were more
confident than participants in the text condition for mis-
leading items, t(46) = 2.09, p = .042, d = .603. When there
was a minimal or detailed warning, there was no difference
in confidence for misleading items between participants in
the text and video conditions, t(47) = 1.19, p = .241, d
= .339 and t(46) = 0.79, p = .435, d = .227, respectively.
Next, we examined participants’ confidence for mis-
leading items according to whether their answer was
correct or incorrect. A 2 (delivery method: video, text) × 3
(warning: none, minimal, detailed) × 2 (answer: correct,
incorrect) repeated measures ANOVA2 revealed that only
the main effect of answer was significant, F(1, 107) =
6.91, p = .010, h2p = .061. Participants were more confident
about misleading items when their answer was correct
(M = 3.64, SD = 0.96) than when it was incorrect (M = 3.27,
SD = 1.28), t(112) = 2.60, p = .011, d = .245. No other main
effects or interactions were significant, all Fs < 1.91, all ps
> .152.
To follow-up this finding, we calculated the accuracy-
confidence relationship for participants in the text and
video conditions at each level of warning. As rec-
ommended by Nelson (1984), an ordinal measure of
association (i.e., the Goodman–Kruskal gamma correlation)
was used. Table 1 shows that, for control items, there were
significant negative correlations between number of errors
and confidence in all conditions: as errors increased, confi-
dence decreased. For misleading items, the only significant
negative correlation was for participants who received a
106 S. J. SHARMAN ET AL.
Table 1. Gamma correlations between confidence and number of errors for
control and misleading items in each condition.
Delivery Control Misleading
Warning mode N items items
No warning Text 24 −.73*** −.23
Video 24 −.70*** −.20
Minimal Text 24 −.66** .15
warning
Video 25 −.58** −.17
Detailed Text 24 −.62** −.44*
warning
Video 24 −.65** −.30
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
detailed warning in the text condition. For all other con-
ditions, the relationship was not significant.
Discussion
We examined the effectiveness of pre-warnings about mis-
leading post-event information when it was delivered in a
social media-style video and in a text-based narrative. We
found that delivery method of misinformation had no
main effect on the number of errors that participants
made for misleading items. This finding does not
support our first hypothesis. There are several possible
explanations that should be examined in future research.
First, it is possible that, like our video participants, text par-
ticipants relied on more heuristic processing of the post-
event information. Alternatively, our video participants
may have relied on more systematic processing of the
post-event information, like our text participants. Second,
it is possible participants found the post-event information
equally credible in the text and video conditions; that is,
the video information was not perceived to be more cred-
ible (see Sundar et al., 2021). Many factors affect perceived
source credibility (see Pornpitakpan, 2004, for a review). In
the current experiment, the main difference between the
video and text conditions was that participants saw the
actor in the video; there was no visual representation of
the “previous participant” in the text condition. It is poss-
ible that participants in the video condition made credi-
bility judgments based on the actor’s appearance (e.g.,
Horai et al., 1974; Wang & Scheinbaum, 2018), which
affected their acceptance of the misleading information.
As expected, the effectiveness of the pre-warning
depended on its level as well as whether participants
received the misleading information via video or text.
When there was no warning or a minimal warning, partici-
pants made a similar number of errors for misleading items
in both the text and video conditions. However, when par-
ticipants received a detailed warning, they made signifi-
cantly more errors for misleading items in the video than
the text condition. In other words, the detailed warning
was effective in protecting participants against misleading
information, but only if this information was presented in a
text-based narrative. The finding that – for participants in
the text condition – the detailed warning was more
effective than the minimal warning and no warning is con-
sistent with Blank and Launay’s (2014) review of post-
warnings and the elements that make them effective.
Our detailed warning stated that misleading information
was present in the post-event information, discredited
the source of the misleading information, and “enligh-
tened” participants about why misleading information
was included in our experiment. In contrast, our minimal
warning only mentioned the possibility of incorrect infor-
mation being present in the post-event information; it
did not discredit the source of the misleading information
or enlighten participants. Our finding that the minimal
warning did not protect people against misleading infor-
mation is consistent with other research (Bailey et al.,
2021). Bailey et al. (2021) showed participants a video
before asking them to read a text-based narrative contain-
ing control and misleading post-event information. Half
the participants received a pre-warning before reading
the narrative. They were told that, “There may be differ-
ences between the [narrative] and the video”. Finally, par-
ticipants completed a recognition test about items from
the original video. The pre-warning had no significant
effect on participants’ responses on the test.
Our finding that the detailed warning was effective only
for participants in the text condition supported our third
hypothesis. Despite the detailed warning, participants in
the video condition made more errors for misleading
items compared to participants in the text condition. It is
possible that the detailed warning alerted participants to
the possibility of encountering incorrect information,
which may have led to two possible strategies. First, par-
ticipants in the text condition may have slowed down
their reading speed to detect discrepancies between the
original event and the post-event narrative (Greene
et al., 1982; Tousignant et al., 1986). However, our data
showing how long participants spent on the page display-
ing the post-event information does not support this
explanation: the detailed warning participants did not
spend longer on this page than the minimal or no
warning participants.
Second, the detailed warning may have encouraged
participants to make more careful source monitoring
decisions at retrieval (Ecker et al., 2010). When participants
received a detailed warning, they may have more closely
monitored the source of the remembered details to deter-
mine if they could be attributed to the original event or the
post-event information. Text participants were better at
making this attribution than video participants, possibly
because the text-based narrative presentation of the
post-event information encouraged participants to
process the post-event information more systematically
compared to video participants (see also Sundar et al.,
2021). However, this processing-based explanation is not
supported by our lack of main effect for delivery method
(video vs text) on number of errors for misleading items.
Instead, the detailed warning may have been effective
only in the text condition because text participants had

additional source cues, which allowed them to capitalise
on the detailed warning. For text participants, they
needed to distinguish between details that appeared in
a video (original electrician event) and details that
appeared in a text narrative (post-event information) at
retrieval. In contrast, video participants needed to dis-
tinguish between two videos (original electrician event
and the post-event information). Research has shown
that the greater the similarity between two sources, the
more difficult it is to discriminate between them (Ferguson
et al., 1992; Johnson et al., 1988; Lindsay et al., 1991).
Our confidence results showed that, overall, partici-
pants were more confident about their responses for mis-
leading items than control items, which is consistent with
past research (Higham et al., 2017; Tomes & Katz, 2000;
Weingardt et al., 1994). We also found that when they
were not warned, participants in the video condition
were more confident about their answers for misleading
items than participants in the text condition. When they
received a minimal or detailed warning, there was no
difference in confidence between video and text partici-
pants. It is possible that, when there was no warning, par-
ticipants found the post-event information more credible
when presented in a video than in text (see also Sundar
et al., 2021). This increased credibility may have led to
increased confidence for their answers for the misleading
items. It is also possible that post-event information pre-
sented in the video was processed more heuristically
than post-event information presented in the text (Lang,
2000; Sundar, 2008). This heuristic processing may have
increased participants’ confidence ratings as people rely
on different cues to make their ratings, including their
beliefs about memory (Koriat, 1997).
The above results reflect participants’ confidence
regardless of whether their answers to the misleading
items on the recognition test were correct or incorrect.
Further analyses demonstrated that participants’ confi-
dence ratings were related to accuracy, which suggests
that participants had some level of insight. Gamma corre-
lations revealed that misinformation impaired resolution;
that is, the ability of participants’ confidence ratings to dis-
criminate correct from incorrect answers (Higham et al.,
2011). Our participants showed good resolution for
control items – confidence ratings increased as number
of errors decreased – which is consistent with past
research (Bonham & González-Vallejo, 2009; Tomes &
Katz, 2000; Weingardt et al., 1994). They showed poor res-
olution for misleading items – there were no significant
relationships between confidence and errors – except for
participants in the text condition who received a detailed
warning. Although these participants’ resolution was lower
for misleading items than control items, their confidence
ratings increased as their number of errors decreased.
The current experiment has several limitations. First, we
do not know which component of the detailed warning
was responsible for its effectiveness for participants in
the text condition. Participants were (1) told about the
MEMORY 107
presence of the misleading information, (2) given infor-
mation that discredited the source of the post-event infor-
mation (they were told that the researchers wrote it rather
than a previous participant) and (3) “enlightened” about
why misleading post-event information was included in
the experiment. These three components correspond to
the three dimensions of post-warnings identified in Blank
and Launay’s (2014) meta-analysis. Their analysis showed
that the enlightenment component was the most
effective in reducing the misinformation effect. However,
future research could examine these three dimensions in
pre-warning studies.
Second, we explained above that the minimal warning
was not effective in reducing errors for misleading items
because it did not increase participants’ source monitoring
at retrieval. However, there are at least two reasons other
reasons why it was not effective. The first reason is that
participants did not find the minimal warning credible. In
the context of experiments, participants may make
assumptions about the researchers based on the materials
presented to them. In our experiment, it appeared that we
deliberately chose to expose participants to post-event
information that had been “flagged for unverified
content”. As a result, participants may have been dismis-
sive of the warning, which is why it did not effectively
reduce participants’ errors for misleading items. Future
research could examine participants’ trust in the minimal
warning.
The second reason is desensitisation. It is possible that
participants were already familiar with the TikTok-style
warning as they had seen it many times. With repeated
exposure, the warning may have lost its effectiveness as
people become desensitised. Indeed, research has shown
that smokers become desensitised to the health warnings
on cigarette packets (Drovandi et al., 2018) and that critical
care works become desensitised to alerts in their environ-
ment (Ancker et al., 2017). It is possible that our minimal
warning was not effective as participants were already
desensitised to it and dismissed it without really applying
it to the post-event information. One final limitation is that
all our participants were aware that the study was investi-
gating the effect of post-event information on memory for
witnessed events. This knowledge may have encouraged
participants to pay more attention to the electrican
video and engage in rehearsal, which may be different
from real-world witness situations. However, a recent
experiment examined the effects of pre-event instructions
that informed participants they would watch a video of a
crime and later need to identify the culprit in a line-up (Bal-
dassari et al., 2023). Compared to participants who were
told only that they would watch a video, the “informed”
participants did not perform better on the identification
task. Thus, informing our participants that the experiment
was investigating witness memory may not have affected
their accuracy.
Our study found that misinformation delivered via a
social media video is particularly detrimental to witnesses’
108 S. J. SHARMAN ET AL.
memory reports, given that this misinformation was resist-
ant to a detailed pre-warning. While our study focused on
adult participants, adolescents are accessing social media
at substantial rates (Martin et al., 2018), and misinforma-
tion effects have been shown to differ with age (e.g.,
Sutherland & Hayne, 2001). Thus, future work should deter-
mine adolescent witnesses’ susceptibility to misinforma-
tion delivered via social media. Researchers could also
consider testing a range of social media delivery modes
(such as embedding misinformation in photographic Insta-
gram posts and Facebook comment sections) because the
method of delivering misinformation has been shown to
affect the size of the misinformation effect in past research
(e.g., Campbell et al., 2007; Greene et al., 2022; Ulatowska
et al., 2016).
In conclusion, this study was the first to compare misin-
formation delivered via a social media style video with a
standard text-based narrative. We found misinformation
effects for both delivery methods. We additionally tested
the benefits of two pre-warnings to caution participants
about upcoming misinformation. The minimal pre-
warning did not reduce the misinformation effect for
either the social media video or the text condition. The
detailed pre-warning was successful in reducing the misin-
formation effect for the text condition, but not the social
media video condition. Participants who received a
detailed warning in the text condition also had better res-
olution: their confidence ratings were related to their accu-
racy for misleading items. No other participants
demonstrated this resolution for misleading items. These
results have important implications for eyewitnesses.
People who witness an event and then share details
(including incorrect information) about it online in a
social media video may detrimentally influence other wit-
nesses’ memories. Even warning potential viewers that the
video that they are about to watch contains incorrect infor-
mation does not protect them against it. Given the speed
and scope with which misleading information can be
spread, this is particularly concerning.
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work
featured in this article.
Notes
1. Note that participants who identified as non-binary were not
included in this analysis as they had an expected count less
than 5.
2. This analysis was conducted on the 113 participants whose
answers for the misleading items were a mixture of correct
and incorrect, as accuracy was the within-subjects variable in
this repeated measures ANOVA. It excluded participants who
only got the misleading items correct (n = 29) or incorrect (n
= 3).
Open Scholarship
This article has earned the Center for Open Science badge
for Open Data The data are openly accessible at https://os-
f.io/7c8v2/?view_only=e56dbb79036c4dc6bd9a53fd40dc
67ba
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work
featured in this article.
ORCID
Stefanie J. Sharman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0635-047X
Meaghan C. Danby http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7060-7121
Atticus D. Gray http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0370-7488
References
Ancker, J. S., Edwards, A., Nosal, S., Hauser, D., Mauer, E., Kaishal, R.,
with the HITEC Investigators. (2017). Effects of workload, work
complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical
decision support system. BMC Medical Informatics Decision
Making, 17(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-
0430-8
Anderson, M. (2015). 5 facts about online video, for YouTube’s 10th
birthday. Pew Research Center http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/02/12/ 5-facts-about-online-video-for-youtubes-10th-
birthday/
Bailey, N. A., Olaguez, A. P., Klemfuss, J. Z., & Loftus, E. F. (2021). Tactics
for increasing resistance to misinformation. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 35(4), 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3812
Baldassari, M.J., Moore, K.N., Hyman, I.E., Hope, L., Mah, E. Y., Lindsay,
D. S., Mansour, J., Saraiva, R., Horry, R., Rath, H., Kelly, L., Jones, R.,
Vale, S., Lawson, B., Pedretti, J., Palma, T. A., Cruz, F., Quarenta, J.,
Van der Cruyssen, … Wiechert, S. (2023). The effect of pre-event
instructions on eyewitness identification. Cognitive Research:
Principles and Implications, 8(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-
023-00471-4
Battista, F., Mangiulli, I., Herter, J., Curci, A., & Otgaar, H. (2020). The
effects of repeated denials and fabrication on memory. Journal
of Cognitive Psychology, 32(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/
20445911.2020.1767626
Blank, H., & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory
against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-
warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 3(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101798
Bonham, A. J., & González-Vallejo, C. (2009). Assessment of calibration
for reconstructed eye-witness memories. Acta psychologica, 131(1),
34–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.008
Campbell, J. M., Edwards, M. S., Horswill, M. S., & Helman, S.
(2007). Effects of contextual cues in recall and recognition
memory: The misinformation effect reconsidered. British Journal
of Psychology, 98(3), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606
X160768
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing
and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Chambers, K. L., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2001). Intended and unintended
effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility:
Evidence from source identification tests. Memory & Cognition, 29
(8), 1120–1129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206381
Chen, Q., Min, C., Zhang, W., Ma, X., & Evans, R. (2021). Factors driving
citizen engagement with government TikTok accounts during the
COVID-19 pandemic: Model development and analysis. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 23(2), e21463. https://doi.org/10.2196/
21463
Cullen, H. J., Paterson, H. M., & van Golde, C. (2021). Stopping crime?
The effect of crime re-enactments on eyewitness memory.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(2), 286–309. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13218719.2020.1775151
Drovandi, A., Teague, P.-A., Glass, B., & Malau-Aduli, B. (2018).
Australian school student perceptions of effective anti-tobacco
health warnings. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 297. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00297
Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003).
Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and
absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and mis-
information accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 813–825. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.813
Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., & Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist
misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of
memory characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 770–782.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193073
Ecker, U. K., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. (2010). Explicit warnings
reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinfor-
mation. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/
10.3758/MC.38.8.1087
Eisen, M. M., Frenda, S. F., Jones, J. M., & Williams, T. Q. (2020, January/
February). How exposure to social media affects eyewitness
memory. The Champion, 18–24. www.nacdl.org/Article/
JanFeb2020-HowExposuretoSocialMediaAffectsEyewitne
Ferguson, S. A., Hashtroudi, S., & Johnson, M. K. (1992). Age differences
in using source-relevant cues. Psychology and Aging, 7(3), 443–452.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.443
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting
against misleading post-event information with a self-adminis-
tered interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 568–575.
https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2828
Goodwin, K. A., Hannah, P. J., Nicholl, M. C., & Ferri, J. M. (2017). The
confident co-witness: The effects of misinformation on memory
after collaborative discussion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(2),
225–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3320
Greene, C. M., Bradshaw, R., Huston, C., & Murphy, G. (2022). The
medium and the message: Comparing the effectiveness of six
methods of misinformation delivery in an eyewitness memory
paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(4), 677–
693. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000364
Greene, E., Flynn, M. S., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Inducing resistance to mis-
leading information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
21(2), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90571-0
Hekkanen, S. T., & McEvoy, C. (2002). False memories and source-
monitoring problems: criterion differences. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 16(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.753
Higham, P. A., Blank, H., & Luna, K. (2017). Effects of postwarning
specificity on memory performance and confidence in the
eyewitness misinformation paradigm. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 23(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xap0000140
Higham, P. A., Luna, K., & Bloomfield, J. (2011). Trace-strength and
source-monitoring accounts of accuracy and metacognitive resol-
ution in the misinformation paradigm. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 25(2), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1694
MEMORY 109
Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. (1974). The effects of expertise and
physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking.
Sociometry, 37(4), 601–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786431
Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C. L. (1988).
Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and ima-
gined autobiographical events. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 117(4), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0096-3445.117.4.371
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitor-
ing. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.114.1.3
Karanian, J. M., Rabb, N., Wulff, A. N., Torrance, M. G., Thomas, A. K., &
Race, E. (2020). Protecting memory from misinformation: Warnings
modulate cortical reinstatement during memory retrieval.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 22771–
22779. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008595117
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A
cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message pro-
cessing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
Lee, J., & Shin, S. Y. (2022). Something that they never said:
Multimodal disinformation and source vividness in understanding
the power of AI-enabled deepfake news. Media Psychology, 25(4),
531–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2021.2007489
Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility
effect and memory for source. Memory & Cognition, 17(3), 349–
358. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198473
Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental
changes in memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 52(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
0965(91)90065-Z
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human
mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory.
Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.
94705
Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of
verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(1), 19–31. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19
Martin, F., Wang, C., Petty, T., Wang, W., & Wilkins, P. (2018). Middle
school students’ social media use. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 21(1), 213–224.
Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Source monitoring:
Attributing mental experiences. In E. Tulving, & F. I. M. Craik
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 179–195). Oxford
University Press.
Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accu-
racy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95
(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109
Oeberst, A., & Blank, H. (2012). Undoing suggestive influence on
memory: The reversibility of the eyewitness misinformation
effect. Cognition, 125(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2012.07.009
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Memon, A., & Wang, J. (2014). The develop-
ment of differential mnemonic effects of false denials and forced
confabulations. Behavioral Sciences & Law, 32(6), 718–731.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2148
Parker, S., Garry, M., Engle, R. W., Harper, D. N., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2008).
Psychotropic placebos reduce the misinformation effect by
increasing monitoring at test. Memory (Hove, England), 16(4),
410–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210801956922
Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Comparing methods of encoun-
tering post-event information: The power of co-witness sugges-
tion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 1083–1099. https://doi.
org/10.1002/acp.1261
110 S. J. SHARMAN ET AL.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A
critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.
2004.tb02547.x
Rantzen, A., & Markham, R. (1992). The reversed eyewitness testimony
design: More evidence for source monitoring. Journal of General
Psychology, 119(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1992.
9921156
R v Alexander. (2013). 1 CrAppR 26.
Sharman, S. J., & Powell, M. B. (2012). A comparison of adult witnesses’
suggestibility across various types of leading questions. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1793
Strass v Police. (2013). SASC 3.
Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to under-
standing technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger, & A. J.
Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 72–100).
The MIT Press.
Sundar, S. S., Molina, M. D., & Cho, E. (2021). Seeing is believing: Is video
modality more powerful in spreading fake news via online messa-
ging apps? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6),
301–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab010
Sutherland, R., & Hayne, H. (2001). Age-related changes in the misin-
formation effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(4),
388–404. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2610
Takarangi, M. K., Parker, S., & Garry, M. (2006). Modernising the misinfor-
mation effect: The development of a new stimulus set. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.
1209
Tomes, J. L., & Katz, A. N. (2000). Confidence–accuracy relations for real
and suggested events. Memory (Hove, England), 8(5), 273–283.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210050117708
Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Discrepancy
detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information.
Memory & Cognition, 14(4), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.3758/
BF03202511
Tseng, Y.-C., Bi, N., Chang, Y.-J., & Yuan, C. (2022). Investigating correc-
tion effects of different modalities for misinformation about COVID-
19. In Companion Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social
Computing (CSCW’22 Companion), November 08–22, 2022, Virtual
Event, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.1145/3500868.3559455
Ulatowska, J., Olszewska, J., & Hanson, M. D. (2016). Do format differ-
ences in the presentation of information affect susceptibility to
memory distortions? The three-stage misinformation procedure
reconsidered. American Journal of Psychology, 129(4), 407–417.
https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.4.0407
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false
news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.
1126/science.aap9559
Wang, S. W., & Scheinbaum, A. C. (2018). Enhancing brand credibility
via celebrity endorsement. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(1),
16–32. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2017-042
Weingardt, K. R., Leonesio, R. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Viewing eyewit-
ness research from a metacognitive perspective. In J. Metcalfe, & A.
P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp.
157–184). The MIT Press.
Williams, K. D., Loftus, E. F., & Deffenbacher, K. A. (1992). Eyewitness
evidence and testimony. In D. K. Kagehiro et al. (Ed.), Handbook
of Psychology and Law (pp. 141–166). Springer.
Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the
suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 934. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.934