Loftus+and+Pickrell+-+Period+2

= =


 * FORMATION OF FALSE MEMORIES**

RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This study is an extension of a study done with a 14 year old boy, Chris, whom the researchers did the exact procedure with.

AIM
- To understand how we become tricked by revised data about a witnessed event - Can this revised data allow us to form false memories of seen events

PARTICIPANT GROUP

 * 24 participants went to the lab with a close family member
 * 3 males, 21 females (ages 18-53)
 * Nobody in a pair was younger than 18
 * The ‘relative’ member had to be knowledgeable about subjects from the person’s early childhood

**RESEARCH METHOD**

 * Experiment

DATA COLLECTION

 * The data collected in this study was both qualitative and quantitative. They collected a lot of personal details about these false memories, but also collected ratings to compare the numbers between the people who said they recalled the false memories and those who identified the memory as false.

PROCEDURE

 * Interviews were conducted with a close family member of the subject, who was asked to determine events from the subjects childhood between the ages of four and six. They were also asked to provide information about a plausible shopping trip that could have been taken when the subject was about five. The actual subjects were told they were participating in a study about childhood memories and why we remember some and not others. They read a booklet containing different events and were told to write details down about what they remember from the events. If they did not remember an event, they would write “I do not remember this.” The false event in the booklet had the elements of being lost for an extended period of time in a mall, crying, around the age of five, found and aided by an elderly woman, and reunited with their family. Once they finished the booklet, they mailed it back to the researchers. One to two weeks later the subject was interviewed either over the phone or at the university. The subjects were asked to recall as many details from these childhood events as possible. They rated their clarity and content on a scale of 1 to 10, and also rated their confidence that they could remember more information if they were given more time (1 to 5). Once finished, they were thanked an debriefed.

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS

 * Subjects were mailed a 5 page booklet with instructions
 * It contained 4 short stories of events that their relative described of the subject’s childhood
 * 3 were real, 1 was fake
 * False memory event was always the 3rd event presented

RESULTS

 * Of the 72 true events, 49 were remembered
 * Of the 24 false, 7 claimed they remembered them but in later interviews only 6 said they remembered them
 * Looking at the 7 subjects who said they remembered the false event, they used more words to describe it (138 vs. ~50)
 * During interviews, 75% of the participants said they didn’t remember the event of being lost in a mall
 * 5 of the 6 who ‘recalled’ the false memory had clarity ratings for true events and 2.8 for the false memory
 * Those 5 people had a higher confident rating for true memories than the rating for the false memory
 * 19/24 people were able to identify the mall memory as the false memory

CONCLUSIONS
- It could be because elements of their story are paired with actual events in their life)
 * False memories can be formed
 * The researchers claim they don’t know what percentage of people false memories can be formed in, but they do know it is possible


 * STRENGTHS**
 * A lot of control(False memory always the third).
 * False memory had the same content.
 * Interviews always scheduled the same time apart from each other.)
 * This was a lab study.
 * The real stories came from relative.
 * There was a relative supplying information for a false story.
 * Had both qualitative (what do you remember) and quantitative (Number of words written, number of memories, etc.) data.
 * Verified the possibility of the participant actually getting lost in a mall at the age of 5.
 * All memories were real-world scenarios.


 * WEAKNESSES**
 * Deception(made people believe in a memory that wasn’t true)
 * Awkward task(had to write everything they remember about each memory. Interviews over telephone)
 * Infantile amnesia(the forgetting of childhood memories)
 * Could psychologically harm someone.


 * ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY**
 * Low ecological validity.
 * Only three male participants, so it cannot be generalized to males.
 * Awkward task could have mislead participants.
 * Relative may not accurately remember something from so long ago.


 * ETHICS**
 * Deceived subjects.
 * Made them believe in a memory that didn’t actually happen (psychological issues).