1,721,055 research outputs found
The role of self-motives in the mechanisms of memory distortions caused by misinformation effect
No full textNon-mnestic mechanisms of the misinformation effect in the context of cognitive scripts
No full textPodstawowym celem zaprezentowanych w niniejszej rozprawie badań było określenie związków pomiędzy skryptami poznawczymi a efektem dezinformacji i pamięcią świadków. Chociaż można odnaleźć wiele badań dotyczących wpływu myślenia schematowego na pamięć, niewiele wysiłku poświęcono na łączenie go z wielkością efektu dezinformacji. Po streszczeniu stanu wiedzy na temat efektu dezinformacji i jego uwarunkowań, skryptów poznawczych oraz związków myślenia schematowego oraz skryptów poznawczych na pamięć, zaprezentowano badania własne. Pierwsze badanie dotyczyło empirycznego ustalenia przebiegu skryptu napaści rabunkowej na ulicy. Okazało się, że możliwe jest utworzenie dwóch rodzajów skryptów tego przestępstwa: jednego bez udziału przemocy ze strony napastnika/napastników, oraz drugiego z udziałem przemocy fizycznej i werbalnej. Dla każdego z nich uzyskano elementy typowe i nietypowe, zarówno dotyczące aktorów i miejsca zdarzenia, jak i samej sekwencji zdarzeń przestępstwa. Uzyskane wyniki posłużyły do utworzenia materiału wykorzystanego w drugim badaniu. Drugie badanie, oparte na utworzonym w badaniu pierwszym skrypcie napaści rabunkowej na ulicy bez użycia przemocy, dotyczyło powiązań skryptów poznawczych z efektem dezinformacji oraz pamięcią świadków. Eksperyment zakładał manipulację typowością elementów skryptu w materiale oryginalnym oraz możliwością aktywizacji innego skryptu zarówno poprzez sam materiał oryginalny, jak i materiał następczy (dezinformujący). Manipulowano również wyrazistością oraz istotnością dla skryptu wykorzystanych szczegółów krytycznych (szczegóły centralne i poboczne), a także rodzajem aktora, do którego odnoszono pytanie (napastnik vs. ofiara). Otrzymane wyniki wskazują, że elementy nietypowe dla skryptu mogą zarówno powodować lepsze zapamiętanie zdarzenia, a co za tym idzie, zmniejszenie efektu dezinformacji, jednak jeśli równocześnie są powiązane z innym skryptem i aktywizują go, to niejednoznaczność skryptu może powodować zwiększanie się efektu dezinformacji. Efekty te uzyskano głównie dla szczegółów centralnych dla skryptu. Stwierdzono także, że w odniesieniu do centralnego zdarzenia związanego z napastnikiem, niejednoznaczność skryptu może powodować zwiększenie się udziału pozapamięciowych mechanizmów efektu dezinformacji, gdyż w tym przypadku osoby świadome rozbieżności pomiędzy materiałem oryginalnym i następczym częściej odpowiadały zgodnie z dezinformacją niż w pozostałych warunkach. Dodatkowo potwierdzono, że poprzez zaburzanie skryptu elementami nietypowymi można jeszcze bardziej zmniejszyć pewność odpowiedzi osób badanych, jeśli wcześniej była ona już zmniejszona poprzez podanie dezinformacji. Natomiast, jeśli nie podaje się materiału dezinformującego, samo zaburzenie skryptu nie spowodowało zmniejszenia odczuwanej pewności poprawności odpowiedzi u osób badanych. Zaobserwowano również odmienne przetwarzanie skryptu w odniesieniu do napastnika i ofiary napaści. Uzyskane wyniki wskazują, jakie czynniki związane z przetwarzaniem skryptu mogą zwiększać błędy w raportach pamięciowych świadków, a jakie błędy te niwelują. Wiedza ta może pomóc w określaniu warunków granicznych dla wiarygodności świadka naocznego.The main purpose of the study presented in the following dissertation was to explore relationships between cognitive scripts along with misinformation effect and memory of the witnesses. Although there are many research studies concerning the influence of schematic thinking on memory, not many of them considered that in the context of the size of misinformation effect. The summary of current knowledge on misinformation effect, cognitive scripts and relations between schematic thinking and cognitive scripts together with memory is followed by the presentation of my own research. The first study was focused on describing the course of robbery assault on a street. It has been proved that it is possible to distinguish between two types of scripts for this situation: one without violent behavior of the attacker/attackers and another, involving verbal and physical aggression. For each of them it was possible to identify usual and unusual elements in terms of sequence of the events, actors and location of the event. The results were the basis for creating research materials for the next study. The second study was based on the non-violent script of a robbery assault, created in the first research. It concerned relations between cognitive scripts along with misinformation effect and memories of the witnesses. The experiment assumed manipulation of the typicality of the script's elements from the original material, with possible activation of another script either by the original material itself or the following material. Moreover, critical details (central and peripherical) were manipulated in terms of distinctness and relevance for the script. Additionally, variation was introduced to the type of actor who was interviewed (attacker vs. victim). The results suggest that elements untypical for the script can either enable better remembering of the event, and therefore diminish the misinformation effect or, if related to another script which is being activated, make the original script ambiguous and increase the misinformation effect. This effect was observed mainly for the central details. Additionally, it has been found that in case of central details related to the attacker, ambiguity of the script can increase influence of the non-mnestic mechanisms of the misinformation effect, because people who were aware of the differences between original and following material have responded more often according to the disinformation than in other conditions. Moreover, it has been confirmed that interfering the script with untypical elements can diminish certainty of the answers if it had been previously decreased by disinformation. However, if the disinformative material was not introduced, disrupting the script alone did not influence certainty of the answers. Additionaly, differences in processing scripts in respect of the actor (attacker and victim) have been observed. The results describe which factors related to script processing can increase errors in memory reports of the witnesses and which can decrease them. This knowledge can be useful for creating boundary conditions for liability of the eye witnesses
Factor structure of suggestibility revisited: new evidence for direct and indirect suggestibility
Full text linkBackgroundYielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression.Participants and procedureIn sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours.ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect.ConclusionsSuggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems.BackgroundYielding to suggestions can be viewed as a relatively stable individual trait, called suggestibility. It has been long proposed that there are two kinds of suggestible influence, and two kinds of suggestibility corresponding to them: direct and indirect. Direct suggestion involves overt unhidden influence, while indirect suggestion concerns influence that is hidden, and the participant does not know that the suggestibility is being measured. So far however, empirical evidence for the existence of the two factors has been scarce. In the present study, more sophisticated and reliable tools for measuring suggestibility were applied than in the previous research, in the hope that better measurement would reveal the factor structure of suggestibility. Two tests of direct suggestibility were used: the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A, measuring hypnotic susceptibility, and the Barber Suggestibility Scale, measuring non-hypnotic direct imaginative suggestibility. Three tests served to measure indirect suggestibility: the Sensory Suggestibility Scale, measuring indirect suggestibility relating to perception; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, measuring the tendency to yield to suggestive questions and changing answers after negative feedback; and the Emotional Dialogs Tests, measuring the tendency to perceive nonexistent aggression.Participants and procedureIn sum, 115 participants were tested, 69 women, 49 men, mean age 22.20 years, SD = 2.20. Participants were tested in two sessions, lasting for a total of four hours.ResultsConfirmatory factor analyses confirmed the existence of two uncorrelated factors of suggestibility: direct and indirect.ConclusionsSuggestibility may indeed involve two factors, direct and indirect, and failure to discover them in previous research may be due to methodological problems
Reinforced self-affirmation and interrogative suggestibility
No full textIn this study, we aimed to determine whether reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), consisting of positive feedback about one's memory skills and reflecting on one's achievements, can reduce vulnerability to interrogative suggestibility. We used the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS) to assess two kinds of suggestibility: the tendency to yield to suggestive questions (Yield) and the tendency to give different answers after negative feedback (Shift). The RSA group was administered the RSA before undergoing the standard GSS2 procedure. The control group did not perform the RSA. The results showed that compared with the control group, the RSA group demonstrated significantly lower scores for all measures of interrogative suggestibility. There were no differences in memory skills and confabulation between the groups. Our results suggest that RSA may constitute the basis of an effective method to counteract the effects of misleading questions and negative feedback in the context of interrogation
- …
