Eyewitnesses are often called upon to report information about what they have seen. A
wealth of research from the past century has demonstrated, however, that eyewitness
memory is malleable and vulnerable to distorting influences, including the effects of
misinformation. In this article, we review recent developments in research related to
the misinformation effect, including individual differences in susceptibility,
neuroimaging approaches, and protective interview procedures that may better elicit
accurate event details. We conclude with a section on related false memory
research.
BraunK.A.EllisR.LoftusE.F. (2002). Make my memory: How advertising
can change our memories of the past. Psychology &
Marketing, 19,
1–23.
2.
DavisD.LoftusE.F. (2005). Age and functioning in the legal
system: Perception memory and judgment in victims, witnesses and
jurors. In NoyI.KarwowskiW. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic human factors and
ergonomics. London, England:
Taylor & Francis.
3.
HartR.E.SchoolerJ.W. (2006). Increasing belief in the
experience of an invasive procedure that never happened: The role of plausibility
and schematicity. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
20, 661–669.
4.
LoftusE.F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the
human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory.
Learning and Memory, 12,
361–366.
5.
LoftusE.F.PickrellJ.E. (1995). The formation of false
memories. Psychiatric Annals,
25, 720–725.
6.
MemonA.ZaragozaM.CliffordB.R.KiddL. (2009). Inoculation or antidote? The
effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated
events. Law and Human Behavior,
34, 105–117.
7.
OstJ.GranhagP.UdellJ.HjelmsäterE.R. (2008). Familiarity breeds distortion:
The effects of media exposure on false reports concerning media coverage of the
terrorist attacks in London on 7 July 2005.
Memory, 16,
76–85.
8.
PorterS.YuilleJ.C.LehmanD.R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted,
and fabricated memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the
recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior,
23, 517–537.
9.
Rovee-CollierC.BorzaM.A.AdlerS.A.BollerK. (1993). Infants' eyewitness testimony:
Effects of postevent information on a prior memory representation.
Memory and Cognition, 21,
267–279.
10.
SchwartzB.L.MeissnerC.M.HoffmanM.L.EvansS.FrazierL.D. (2004). Event memory and information
effects in a gorilla. Animal Cognition,
7, 93–100.
11.
SjödénB.GranhagP.A.OstJ.HjelmsäterE.R. (2009). Is the truth in the details?
Extended narratives help distinguishing false “memories” from false
“reports.”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50,
203–210.
12.
SlotnickS.D.SchacterD.L. (2004). A sensory signature that
distinguishes true from false memories. Nature
Neuroscience, 7,
664–672.
13.
SlotnickS.D.SchacterD.L. (2006). The nature of memory related
activity in early visual areas. Neuropsychologia,
44, 2874–2886.
14.
StarkC.E.L.OkadoY.LoftusE.F. (2010). Imaging the reconstruction of
true and false memories using sensory reactivation and the misinformation
paradigms. Learning and Memory,
17, 485–488.
WellsG.L.MemonA.PenrodS.D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving
its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 7,
45–75.
17.
WrightD.B.Livingston-RaperD. (2002). Memory distortion and
dissociation: Exploring the relationship in a non-clinical sample.
Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 3,
97–109.
18.
WrightD.B.MemonA.SkagerbergE.M.GabbertF. (2009). When eyewitnesses
talk. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 18,
174–178.
19.
ZhuB.ChenC.LoftusE.F.LinC.HeQ.ChenC. (2010a). Individual differences in false
memory from misinformation: Cognitive factors.
Memory, 18,
543–555.
20.
ZhuB.ChenC.LoftusE.F.LinC.HeQ.ChenC. (2010b). Individual differences in false
memory from misinformation: Personality characteristics and their interactions
with cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48,
889–894.
