Summary: Researchers report that, in some cases, exposure to misinformation can strengthen memory for an event.

Source: APS.

Detecting Misinformation Can Improve Memory

Although exposure to false information about an event is commonly thought to impair memory for the original details, new research shows a more nuanced picture. A study published in Psychological Science finds that when people notice that post-event information contradicts what they originally observed, that recognition of change can actually enhance later memory of the original event.

Lead author Adam Putnam, a psychological scientist at Carleton College, explains: “Our experiments show that misinformation can sometimes enhance memory rather than harm it. These findings help explain why misinformation effects occur in some situations but not in others—if people detect that the misinformation is inaccurate, they are less likely to form a false memory.”

Study Design and Procedure

In the first experiment, 72 undergraduate participants viewed six slide shows, each containing 50 photographs that together depicted particular events. After a short distractor task, participants read narrative descriptions that corresponded to those slide shows. Each narrative contained details that were either consistent with, neutral toward, or inconsistent with the original photographs.

For example, a slide might show a thief finding $1 bills in a car. A consistent narrative would repeat that detail (“He examined the bills, and saw they were all $1 bills”), a neutral narrative might use a generic term (“He examined the bills and saw they were all US currency”), and an inconsistent narrative would introduce misinformation (“He examined the bills and saw that they were all $20 bills”).

After reading the narratives and completing another filler task, participants answered multiple-choice recognition questions about the original slide shows. Choices included the correct item (e.g., $1 bills), the misinformation option (e.g., $20 bills), and an unrelated incorrect option (e.g., $5 bills). Following each recognition judgment, participants reported whether they had noticed any discrepancy between the slide show and the narrative.

Key Findings

As expected from decades of research, participants were generally more likely to select misinformation when narratives contradicted the original images. However, a critical and surprising pattern emerged: when participants remembered that the narrative had changed a detail from the slide show, exposure to misinformation did not weaken memory. In fact, participants who detected and later remembered that change were more likely to correctly recall the original detail after reading the misleading narrative than participants who had read a neutral description.

When participants explicitly reported noticing a contradiction, they were less likely to choose the incorrect misinformation option for those details. In other words, actively detecting and later recollecting a change tended to protect—or even improve—memory for the original information.

The second experiment replicated these effects and further showed that the inherent memorability of a detail matters: relatively less memorable details were more vulnerable to being altered by misinformation, whereas more memorable details were less likely to succumb and in some cases benefited from a detected contradiction.

Interpretation and Implications

These results challenge a simple view of the misinformation effect as an automatic consequence of exposure to false details. Classic interference theory suggests that encountering new or conflicting information generally harms memory for prior events, but the current findings highlight conditions under which change can be beneficial. Putnam notes that detecting and remembering differences—what the authors describe as recollecting change—can serve as a cue that strengthens memory for the original event.

Putnam cautions against overgeneralizing from dramatic demonstrations of false memory. “People may learn about false memory research and walk away thinking that false memories can easily be implanted about all sorts of events—that we’re constantly remembering things that never happened,” he says. “Our research shows that while false memories can occur with some regularity, they are not inevitable. When observers notice and remember contradictions, their original memories can be preserved or even reinforced.”

Co-authors on the study include Henry L. Roediger III and Victor W. Sungkhasettee of Washington University in St. Louis.

Funding: The research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant DGE-1143954 and by a Collaborative Activity Grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation.

Source: Adam Putnam – APS

Abstract

When Misinformation Improves Memory: The Effects of Recollecting Change

Two experiments examined the consequences of detecting and remembering change in a standard misinformation paradigm. Participants viewed slide shows, read narratives that sometimes introduced misinformation about those events, and then took recognition tests during which they reported whether details had changed between the original event and the postevent narratives. While a robust overall misinformation effect was observed, there were notable exceptions: when subjects detected and later recollected a change, misinformation led to improved recognition of the original event. These findings align with retroactive-interference research and the recursive-remindings framework, which proposes that detecting and remembering change can enhance retention. The authors conclude that misinformation primarily affects details that are not inherently memorable; for more memorable details, presenting misinformation can facilitate later recollection of the original events.

“When Misinformation Improves Memory: The Effects of Recollecting Change” by Adam L. Putnam, Victor W. Sungkhasettee, and Henry L. Roediger, Psychological Science. Published online November 22, 2016. doi:10.1177/0956797616672268