The impact of outcome valence on the susceptibility to suggestion for post-event causal misinformation

ABSTRACT

Recent research has demonstrated that people are especially susceptible to false memory development for suggested misinformation that fills a causal role (i.e., explains some known outcome) (Chrobak & Zaragoza, 2013). However, little is known about how factors associated with the witnessed outcome impact the likelihood of false memory development. In the present study, outcome valence (negative, positive, or neutral) was manipulated. Participants heard several short stories that contained an outcome (e.g., a counselor getting promoted) that lacked a causal explanation. Participants were subsequently exposed to suggested causal misinformation that explained that outcome (e.g., the counselor performed an impressive act the previous day) and then were tested on their memory for the original event. Results indicated that participants incorrectly reported the suggested causal information more when it explained either a positive or negative outcome as opposed to a neutral outcome. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords:

• Causation
• emotion
• false memory
• source monitoring

Author notes

Quin M. Chrobak is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He received a Master's Degree in Psychology from American University in 2005 and a PhD in Experimental Psychology from Kent State University in 2010. Christopher L. Groves received his Master's Degree in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh in 2012 and is currently a doctoral student in psychology at Iowa State University. Tony Otradovich earned a Bachelor's in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh in 2012. The authors would like to thank the undergraduate research assistants in the Cognitive Psychology Research lab at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for feedback on previous versions of this manuscript.

Notes

1. Data regarding perceived valence of the outcomes was not collected in the main experiment, as this may have alerted participants to the true purpose of the experiment.

2. Due to the number of experimental conditions (nine) relative to the number of stories (six), it was not possible for every participant to provide data to every condition interaction (e.g., No Cause / Negative Outcome). Consequently, the counterbalancing orders were constructed such that each participant received the following: Three stories in the Written Cause condition (i.e., the condition of primary interest), two stories in the Audio Cause condition, and one story in the No Cause condition. Each of the outcome valences (i.e., Negative, Positive, and Neutral) occurred twice in each counterbalancing order.

3. An exception to this notion is the Stephanie McAlister story. In this story, the causal misinformation involves a competitor taunting Stephanie about her ill mother prior to the race.