Twenty-four Japanese undergraduate pairs (12 male and 12 female pairs) participated as witnesses to a simulated criminal event. Although the witness pairs watched the same video together, through wireless headphones they experienced two different auditory versions with four differing items without being aware of the discrepancies. After the presentation, the witnesses were led to discuss six items, including two critical ones they had heard differently and another four they had heard in common. Witness memory performance was assessed individually with multiple-choice questionnaires in three sessions: before the discussion, after the discussion, and 1 week later. The results showed that participants tended to conform to their co-witness more often on the discussed items than on the not-discussed items. Source monitoring analyses on the four critical items revealed that even those participants who conformed were mostly cognizant of the source of their information just after the discussion, but they were prone to source-monitoring errors a week later.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsakawaK.ImaiH. (2008) [Memory distortion caused by making a unified report of different stories which were presented auditorily][Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society], 15, 588–598. [in Japanese]
2.
BarnecuttP.PfefferK.CreswellL. (1999) “Earwitness”: a comparison of auditory visual and audio-visual judgments of vehicle speed. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 319–329.
3.
CamposL.Alonso-QuecutyM. L. (2006) Remembering a criminal conversation: beyond eyewitness testimony. Memory, 14, 27–36.
FrenchL.GarryM.MoriK. (2008) You say tomato? Collaborative remembering leads to more false memories for intimate couples than for strangers. Memory, 16, 262–273.
6.
FrenchL.GarryM.MoriK. (2011) Relative—not absolute—judgments of credibility affect susceptibility to misinformation conveyed during discussion. Acta Psychologica, 136, 119–128.
7.
GabbertF.MemonA.AllanK. (2003) Memory conformity: can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543.
8.
GabbertF.MemonA.WrightD. B. (2006) Memory conformity: disentangling the steps toward influence during a discussion. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 480–485.
9.
GarryM.FrenchL.KinzettT.MoriK. (2008) Eyewitness memory following discussion: using the Mori technique with a Western sample. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 431–439.
10.
HewittL. Y.KaneR.GarryM. (2013) Speaking order predicts memory conformity after accounting for exposure to misinformation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 558–565.
11.
HirokawaK.MatsunoE.MoriK.UkitaJ. (2006) Relationship between masculinity-femininity and suggestibility in an experimental collaborative eyewitness testimony. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 533–543.
12.
HopeL.OstJ.GabbertF.HealeyS.LentonE. (2008) “With a little help from my friends …”: the role of co-witness relationship in susceptibility to misinformation. Acta Psychologica, 127, 476–484.
13.
JackF.ZyderveltS.ZajacR. (2013) Are co-witnesses special? Comparing the influence of co-witness and interviewer misinformation on eyewitness reports. Memory, 22(3), 243–255. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2013.778291
14.
KanematsuH.MoriK.MoriH. (1996/2003) Memory distortion in eyewitness pairs who observed nonconforming events and discussed them. [Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society], 3, 29–40. [English version published in the Journal of the Faculty of Education, Shinshu University, 109, 75–84, in 2003.]
15.
KebbellM. R. (2009) Witness confidence and accuracy: is a positive relationship maintained for recall under interview conditions?Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 6, 11–23.
16.
KerstholtJ. H.JansenN. J. M.Van AmelsvoortA. G.BroedersA. P. A. (2006) Earwitnesses: effects of accent, retention and telephone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 187–197.
17.
KrugK. (2007) The relationship between confidence and accuracy: current thoughts of the literature and a new area of research. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3, 7–41.
18.
LarssonA. S.GranhagP. A.SpjutE. (2003) Children's recall and the cognitive interview: do the positive effects hold over time?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 203–214.
19.
McGurkH.MacDonaldJ. (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.
20.
MoriK. (2003) Surreptitiously projecting different movies to two subsets of viewers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 599–604.
21.
MoriK.KitabayashiM. (2009) How child-mother pairs reported what they had witnessed together: an experimental examination using the MORI technique. Psychology Journal, 6, 60–69.
22.
MoriK.MoriH. (2008) Conformity among cowitnesses sharing same or different information about an event in experimental collaborative eyewitness testimony. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 106, 275–290.
23.
MoriK.TakahashiR. (2012) Pre-schoolers' reports of conflicting points secretly inserted into a co-witnessed event: an experimental investigation using the MORI technique. Psychology, 3, 30–35.
24.
ÖhmanL.ErikssonA.GranhagP. A. (2013) Enhancing adults' and children's ear-witness memory: examining three types of interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 216–229.
25.
PatersonH. M.KempR.McIntyreS. (2012) Can a witness report hearsay evidence unintentionally? The effects of discussion on eyewitness memory. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 505–527.
26.
PhilipponA. C.CherrymanJ.BullR.VrijA. (2007) Earwitness identification performance: the effect of language, target, deliberate strategies and indirect measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 539–550.
27.
SkagerbergE. M.WrightD. B. (2008) The prevalence of co-witnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 513–521.
28.
WrightD. B.WarehamG. (2005) Mixing sound and vision: the interaction of auditory and visual information for earwitnesses of a crime scene. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 103–108.
29.
YarmeyA. D. (1992) The effects of dyadic discussion on earwitness recall. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 251–263.
