The indirectly generated tainted truth effect: warning is not necessary to worsen the testimony of non-misled persons

References

• Apsler, R., & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.1), 162–166. doi: 10.1037/h0021248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (str. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blank, H. (1998). Memory states and memory tasks: An integrative framework for eyewitness memory and suggestibility. Memory, 6(5), 481–529. doi: 10.1080/741943086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blank, H., & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(2), 77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 24–27. doi: 10.1177/0963721410389169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, K. L., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2001). Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1120–1129. doi: 10.3758/BF03206381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, J. C. K., & Langley, M. (2011). Paradoxical effects of testing: Retrieval enhances both accurate recall and suggestibility in eyewitnesses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 248–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility: The reversed testing effect. Psychological Science, 20(1), 66–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, J. C. K., Wilford, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2012). Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, SÅ, & Loftus, E. F. (1991). Remembering emotional events: The fate of detailed information. Cognition and Emotion, 5(2), 81–108. doi: 10.1080/02699939108411027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary (Crime detection and prevention series, Paper 77). London: Home Office.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, A. L., & Daneman, M. (2006). Social suggestibility to central and peripheral misinformation. Memory, 14(4), 486–501. doi: 10.1080/09658210500495073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22. doi: 10.1037/h0046671
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Echterhoff, G., Groll, S., & Hirst, W. (2007). Tainted truth: Overcorrection for misinformation influence on eyewitness memory. Social Cognition, 25(3), 367–409. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.3.367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., & Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitness resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 33, 770–782. doi: 10.3758/BF03193073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting against misleading post-event information with a self-administered interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 568–575. doi: 10.1002/acp.2828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles, J. W., Gopnik, A., & Heyman, G. D. (2002). Source monitoring reduces the suggestibility of preschool children. Psychological Science, 13(3), 288–291. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, A. G., Chance, J. E., & Schneller, G. R. (1989). Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27(1), 71–74. doi: 10.3758/BF03329902
   Google Scholar
• Greene, E., Flynn, M. B., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(2), 207–219. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90571-0
   Google Scholar
• Greene, S. B. (1992). Multiple explanations for multiply quantified sentences: Are multiple models necessary? Psychological Review, 99(1), 184–187. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 3; pp. 22–40). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hege, A. C. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: Evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(4), 787–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huff, M. J., Davis, S. D., & Meade, M. L. (2013). The effects of initial testing on false recall and false recognition in the social contagion of memory paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 820–831. doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0299-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information. Memory & Cognition, 7(5), 368–374. doi: 10.3758/BF03196941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F., & Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory, the creation of new memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 100–104. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(1), 19–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luna, K., & Martín-Luengo, B. (2012). Improving the accuracy of eyewitnesses in the presence of misinformation with the plurality option. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 687–693. doi: 10.1002/acp.2845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory? Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 638–677. doi: 10.1037/a0015849
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakata, E. (2008). Misattribution in a source monitoring task: Cross-modal source monitoring errors between perceived and imagined events. The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science, 27(1), 21–25.
   Google Scholar
• Oeberst, A., & Blank, H. (2012). Undoing suggestive influence on memory: The reversibility of the eyewitness misinformation effect. Cognition, 125(2), 141–159. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pansky, A., & Tenenboim, E. (2011). Inoculating against eyewitness suggestibility via interpolated verbatim vs. gist testing. Memory & Cognition, 39, 155–170. doi: 10.3758/s13421-010-0005-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezdek, K. (1977). Cross-modality semantic integration of sentence and picture memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3(5), 515–524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polak, M., Dukała, K., Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2016). Toward a non-memory misinformation effect: Accessing the original source does not prevent yielding to misinformation. Current Psychology, 35(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s12144-015-9352-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polczyk, R. (2007). Mechanizmy efektu dezinformacji w kontekście zeznań świadka naocznego [Mechanisms of the misinformation effect in the context of eyewitness testimony]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrasts analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Definition and interpretation of interaction effects. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 143–146. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szpitalak, M. (2015). W kierunku poprawy jakości zeznań świadków. Pozytywne i negatywne następstwa ostrzegania o dezinformacji. [Positive and negative consequences of warning against misinformation] Kraków: WUJ.
   Google Scholar
• Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2010). Warning against warnings: Alerted subjects may perform worse. Misinformation, involvement and warning on eyewitness testimony. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 41(3), 105–112. doi: 10.2478/v10059-010-0014-2
   Google Scholar
• Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2011a). Can warning harm memory? The impact of warning on eyewitness testimony. Problems of Forensic Sciences, 86, 140–150.
   Google Scholar
• Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2011b). Distortions in eyewitness memory – memory and non-memory mechanisms. Problems of Forensic Sciences, 85, 40–49.
   Google Scholar
• Thierry, K. L., Lamb, M. E., Pipe, M. E., & Spence, M. J. (2010). The flexibility of source-monitoring training: Reducing young children's source confusions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 626–644. doi: 10.1002/acp.1574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Chan, J. C. K. (2010). Testing promotes eyewitness accuracy with a warning: Implications for retrieval enhanced suggestibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 149–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information. Memory & Cognition, 14(4), 329–338. doi: 10.3758/BF03202511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilford, M. M., Chan, J. C. K., & Tuhn, S. J. (2014). Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 81–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D. B. (1993). Misinformation and warnings in eyewitness testimony: A new testing procedure to differentiate explanations. Memory, 1(2), 153–166. doi: 10.1080/09658219308258229
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wyler, H., & Oswald, M. E. (2016). Why misinformation is reported: Evidence from a warning and a source-monitoring task. Memory, 10(24), 1419–1434. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2015.1117641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaragoza, M. S., Belli, R. S., & Payment, K. E. (2006). Misinformation effects and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. In M. Garry & H. Hayne (Eds.), Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth F. Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom (pp. 35–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 934–945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar