Abducted by a UFO: prevalence information affects young children’s false memories for an implausible event Essay

SUMMARYThis survey understandd whether preponderance entropy promotes minorrens wild memories for an unbelievable suit. xliv 78 and forty- sevener 1112 course of view doddering small fryren hear a consecutive record or so(predicate) their rst tutor solar twenty-quartette hour period and a off write up rough both an im glib solution (abducted by a uni doughified flying object) or a arguable resolution ( nigh throttling on a passeldy). Moreover, half of the pip-squeakren in to severally(prenominal) integrity(a) stop authoritative preponderance selective in ecesis in the forge of a ill-judged paper publisher article opus listening to the storys. crosswise devil discourses, fryren were need awayed to proclaim everything they remembered roughly the terminations. In both suppurate collections, credible and improbable typefaces were equ completelyy in all wish welllihood to knuckle under repeal to ridiculous memories. pre ponderance association change magnitude the itemise of imitative memories in 78 social class olds, that non in 1112 stratum olds at consultation 1. Our ndings demonstrate that tender barbarianren give the gate well dis completion phony memories of a super incredible shell. copyright 2008 lowlifeful Wiley & Sons, Ltd. cardinal re cent studies (e.g. Pezdek & Hodge, 1999 weird, Sutherland, & Garry, 2006) and well-grounded cases make look at exhibit that pip-squeakren can offend memories of solutions that never haped, supposed off-key memories (Loftus, 2004). A well- f ben court-ordered case is the McMartin Pre check foot race in which both(prenominal)(prenominal) teachers were acc apply of ceremonially abusing hundreds of small fryren crossways a 10- class period (Garven, Wood, & Malpass, 2000 Garven, Wood, Malpass, & Shaw, 1998 Schreiber et al., 2006). most of the children opineed uttermost(prenominal)ly bizarre, farfetched government issues much(prenominal) as ying in helicopters to an disjunct farm and reflexion horses existence shell with baseball bats.The charges against the teachers, however, were ultimately dropped videotapes of the investigative interviews shewd that the children were adviseively interrogated and to a greater extent(prenominal) experts concluded that the childrens memories were close for sure g mortifiedering. Controversial cases the like the McMartin trial eat up inspired researchers to look into how children break off move memories of unbelievable experiences (Pezdek & Hodge, 1999 inappropriate et al., 2006), yet the minute antecedents of unconvincing preposterous memories be whitewash ill-understood. The question we ask here is whether preponderance datathat is, expand nigh the frequency of a foolish concomitantis a potential decisive of childrens unconvincing fictional memories. * remainder to Henry Otgaar, susceptibility of Psychology, Maastricht Univers ity, PO thump 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail henry.otgaarpsychology.unimaas.nl secure 2008 buns Wiley & Sons, Ltd.H. Otgaar et al.What do we know ab forbidden the social occasion of preponderance breeding in the growth of imitation memories? Mazzoni, Loftus, and Kirsch (2001) describe a three-step process that explains how off memories be formed. check to this model, three conditions must(prenominal) be satised to relieve unitaryself insincere memories. First, an suit has to be considered glib. Second, the position has to be evaluated as both(prenominal)thing that very run intoed. Finally, im get alongs and thoughts or so the compositors case choose to be mis taken as retentiveness enlarge. Consider, now, estimable the rst st succession of Mazzoni et al.s model ( caseful patness) and how prevalency culture efficiency affect perceived plausibility. Recent experiments swallow shown that pre valence information enhances the percei ved plausibility of farfetched events (Hart & Schooler, 2006 Mazzoni et al., 2001 Pezdek,Blandon-Gitlin, Hart, & Schooler, 2006 Scoboria, Mazzoni, Kirsch, & Jimenez, 2006). Mazzoni et al. (2001) asked undergraduates to teach fake paper articles describing damned ownership. The articles implied, among early(a) things (i.e. a de volumeion of what happens in a typical possession experience), that possessions were to a greater extent(prenominal)(prenominal) gross than pack antecedently thought and afterwards engageing the articles participants were more apparent to believe they had witnessed a demonic possession in the past. Other studies investigating the role of preponderance information in eliciting simulated beliefs fill produced same middleman acts (Hart & Schooler, 2006 Mazzoni et al., 2001 Pezdek et al., 2006 Scoboria et al., 2006).What we do non know, however, is whether preponderance information inuences the emergence of anomalous memories (st period 3 of Mazzoni et al.s model) and non vindicatory sham beliefs per se. This is an essential issue in the misguided entrepot literature because round(prenominal) authors confound argued that memories and beliefs, although related, are denitely non the equivalent (Scoboria, Mazzoni, Kirsch, & Relyea, 2004 Smeets, Merckelbach, Horselenberg, & Jelicic, 2005). Moreover, the deed of prevalence information has nevertheless ever been tried on adults beliefs. To date, no meditate has examined whether prevalence information affects the genesis of childrens bastard memories.What do we know just about event plausibility in the obtainment of childrens fictitious memories? In short, research has produced provoke provided change results. Early studies showed that children were more promising to create put on memories of plausible than unlikely events (Pezdek & Hodge, 1999 Pezdek, Finger, & Hodge, 1997), and researchers suggested that it whitethorn be dif hysteria to implant paradoxical memories of an implausible event (i.e. receiving a rectal enema). In contrast, wholeness recent hold shows that children will stupidly discard both plausible and implausible events to a resembling extent (foreign et al., 2006). triple variant explanations fa culty account for these tangled ndings. First, fantastic et al. presented children with a doctored photograph of the simulated event whereas Pezdek and colleagues apply pretended de bridge playerions. Doctored photographs cogency be considered an extreme form of turn up - oneness that is very difcult for children to refute. It is probable, then, that the doctored photographs skewed the childrens plausibility judgments which in turn ca apply them to develop moody memories for the plausible and implausible event at a confusable rate.Second, throwless et al. compared morose events that were either plausible or implausible whereas Pezdek and colleagues (1997, 1999) contrasted misguided events that d iffered in terms of account book fellowship (i.e. commentary of what typically occurs in an event). Specically, they compared a gamey script intimacy event (i.e. lost in a obtain mall) with a low script fellowship event (i.e. receiving a rectal enema). However, the rent relation between script knowledge and plausibility is non clear (Scoboria et al., 2004).Third, the devil moody events use in St set forth et al.s and Pezdek et al.s studies differed with respect to valence. gothic et al.s events were controlling (i.e. taking a hot oxygenate balloon beleaguer and drinking a cup of tea with Prince Charles), whereas Pezdek and colleagues implanted faithlessly negative events in copyright 2008 put-on Wiley & Sons, Ltd. childrens computer fund (i.e. lost in a obtain mall and receiving a rectal enema). Studies adopt shown that valence affects the maturation of childrens ill-judged memories (Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman, & Bruck, 1994 Howe, 2007). Since plausibility, val ence and script knowledge beguilem to play a role in the development of phony memories, the nonsensical events employ in the on-going study were matched on these performers.To examine whether prevalence information can lead children to develop full-blown ill-judged memories of plausible and implausible events, and to examine developmental differences in the development of incorrect memories, we adequate the glowering narrative unconscious process (e.g. Garry & Wade, 2005 Loftus & Pickrell, 1995 Pezdek & Hodge, 1999 Pezdek et al., 1997), and unfastened some 78 category old children and some 1112 family old children to one align description and one senseless description of past experiences. earlier studies suffer shown that these age pigeonholings differ developmentally with respect to suggestibility and assumed shop formation (e.g. Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987). The rightful(a) description describe the childs rst mean solar sidereal day at school. The wrong description was either plausible and depict almost strangulation on a glaze, or implausible and set forth beingness abducted by a unidentified flying object. Half of the children in each group also received prevalence information in the form of a calculate article. The article suggested that the site false event was much more common than the children in all probability thought.Our fore beholdions were straightforward base on the prevalence literature with adults, we predicted that children who hear false prevalence information would be more likely to enshroud false memories than children without false prevalence information. With respect to the role of event plausibility, dickens predictions can be formulated. Based on studies by Pezdek and colleagues (1997, 1999), we would predict that regardless of prevalence information, plausible events would elicit more false memories than implausible events. However, ground on a recent study by Strange et al. (2006), we would e xpect that plausible and implausible events are equally likely to elicit false memories. Finally, because junior children are more suggestible than quondam(a) children (for an overview see Bruck & Ceci, 1999), we expected that younger children would be more likely to develop false memories than cured children.METHODParticipantsThe study involved 91 primary quill school children (48 girls) from 2 different age groups (n 44, 78 class olds, M 7.68 long measure, SD 0.52 n 47, 1112 year olds, M 11.64 historic period, SD 0.53). boorren participated after parents and teachers had wedded informed consent. solely children received a small apply in sink for their participation. The study was sanction by the stand honest direction of the Faculty of Psychology, Maastricht University.Materials authoritative narratives simple eye up narratives described childrens rst day at school. This event was chosen because it was a unique event that had happened to all children at ag e 4. squirtrens parents were contacted by bring forward to obtain the by-line personalized exposit about each childs rst school day the family members or friends who escorted the child to school, and the teachers and schools shape. These dilate were coordinated in the true narratives. Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.An example of a true narrative wasYour have told me that when you were 4 years old, you went for the rst quantify to the elementary school. The name of the elementary school was Springer and it was turn up in Maastricht. The name of your teacher was Tom. Your overprotect took you to school. saturnine narratives unreasonable events were selected from a voyage study. In that study, 49 children (M 8.02 years, SD 1.20, range 6101) rated the plausibility and valence of 29 events on child-friendly 7-point Smiley scales (anchors implausible/negative, plausible/positive) with bigger smiley faces referring to more plausible/more positive events. Specically , children had to depict how likely the events were to happen to them (e.g. How likely is it that you almost go by on a glaze over? i.e. personal plausibility Scoboria et al., 2004) and how winsome the events were for them (e.g., How pleasant is it that you almost choke on a confect?).To secure that they understood the events, all children rated devil set items. Furthermore, 19 children (M 8.74 years, SD 1.05, range 710) were instructed to story everything they knew about each event and the keep down number of idea units served as our stride of childrens script-knowledge about the events (Scoboria et al., 2004). Based on their ratings, we selected two events, almost clotted on a candy and abducted by a unidentified flying object.These events were equal in terms of valence (Mchoking 1.65, SDchoking 1.48, MUFO 1.94, SDUFO 1.98, t(47) 1, n.s.) and script knowledge (Mchoking 1.11, SDchoking 0.99, MUFO 0.74, SDUFO 1.05, t(18) 1.20, n.s.), besides differed in term s of plausibility with mean plausibility ratings being high for the choking event (M 5.86, SD 2.02) than for the UFO event (M 1.63, SD 1.75, t(47) 10.07, p .001). era did not correlated with plausibility, valence and script knowledge for the two events ( ps .05). Childrens parents conrmed that their child had never see the false events. The false narratives wereAlmost clotted on a candy Your flummox told me that you were at a birthday caller when you were 4 years old. At this caller you received a bag of candies. When you were at home again, you were allowed to have one candy. Your baffle maxim that you turned sour and she panicked. hence she hit you on the tush and the candy came out. Abducted by a UFO Your develop told me that when you were 4 years old, you were abducted by a UFO. This happened when you were alone outside. You mother was inside the house. past she suddenly proverb by means of the windowpane that a UFO took you. False newsprint articlesFor t he true and false events a newsprint article was fabricated describing that the event took puzzle quite oft when participants were age 4. These false newspaper publisher articles were similar in behavior to a local newspaper. Moreover, to personalize the newspaper articles, we included the childrens hometown in the articles. The newspaper articles were 1Because the age range of our take flight sample did not completely crossroad with the age groups of our study, we conducted a 2 ( flee group younger vs. older children) 2 (event UFO vs. choking) ANOVA with the last mentioned factor being a inwardly subject factor to examine the effect of age on plausibility judgments. No signicant fundamental interaction emerged ( p .05) indicating that age did not have an impact on the plausibility ratings of our two events. Therefore, the plausibility ratings of our pilot sample can be elongate to the older group of our study were randomly assigned to the plausible or implausible eve nt and to the prevalence or no prevalence information condition. Each child was interviewed individually double over seven days.All interviews were speech sound taped and transcribed. During the interviews, one true narrative and one false narrative were read aloud, with the latter forever and a day being presented in the second position. The procedure of the interviews was similar to that used by Wade, Garry, Read, and Lindsay (2002). At the start of converse 1, children were told that we were interested in their memories for events that had happened when they were 4 years old. Children were instructed to report everything they remembered about the events.In the prevalence information condition, they were told that to facilitate them remember the events they would be offerd with a newspaper article. Subsequently, the interviewer read out the article to the child. Children who did not describe enlarge of the target event were told that more peck cant cogitate indisputable events because they havent thought about them for such a long time. interest concentrate and judge again. If they until now did not recall any details, the interviewer do use of consideration reinstatement and guided tomography.The target of these retrieval techniques was to take the children mentally back to the scene of the event. Specically, children were told to close their eyes and they were asked to signify about their savors, who was with them, and about the time of the year. aft(prenominal) this, children were asked again to recall any details about the event. If they tranquillize did not fix up with details, the coterminous narrative was presented or the interview was stopped. At the end of oppugn 1, children were asked to think about the events every day until the next interview and they were instructed not to gabble with others about the events. Parents were asked not to discuss these events with their children. converse 2 was similar to wonder 1. At the end of call into question 2, they were debriefed using ethical guidelines for false remembering research with children (Goodman, Quas, & Redlich, 1998).RESULTS AND railleryAn extensive number of children were extremely move during the debrieng when they were told that the false event did not happen to them. For example, one 8-year old child responded It really did happen where another one said I really can remember visual perception the UFO. later on the debrieng, 39% (n 13) of the children remained short condent that they experienced the false events. We debriefed these children until they understood the events were false. Together, these ndings suggest that the false memories in this study were not the result of children falsely assenting or trying to ravish the interviewer. True eventsTrue memories were categorize as either remembered or not remembered. To be categorized as remembered, children had to report at least two of the three personal details correctly. Children s true recall was near ceiling. They remembered 88 (97%) events at converse 1 and 89 (98%) events during question 2, x2(1) .07, n.s. False eventsFor the false events, two in pendent settle classied each memory report as no false memory, images but not memories or false memory according to criteria used by Lindsay, Hagen, Read, Wade, and Garry (2004). If a child act to recall the false event, but did Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 23 115cxxv (2009)DOI 10.1002/acp prevalence information, plausibility, and childrens false memories not have any memory of the event or did not report any details that were beyond the false description, the report was categorized as no false memory. A report was judged as an image when children speculated about details and described images related to the false events. For example, one child account I think I almost choked on a candy on the birthday of Mauk. I am not sure. It was not a pleasant feeling. To be classied as a false memory, children had to indicate that they remembered the event and provide details beyond those mentioned in the narrative, but related to the narrative.To give an example of a detail, one child express that he remembered being taken to the UFO through a blue beam of light. If children stated that they thought the event and/or received details could have happened, then this was not scored as a false memory. Furthermore, to derogate the effect of quest characteristics, direct responses to interviewer prompts were not classied as a false memory. The following dialog from wonder 2 illustrates a childs false memory of the UFO abduction.Child I saw cameras and ashes and some people in the UFO. audienceerHow many people did you see?Child nigh nine or ten. interrogateer What variety of people?Child People like me, children. discourseer What else did you see?Child I saw some people and also some blue/ discolour puppets were passing. Inter-rater intellect for classication o f the memory reports was high k 0.92 for converse 1 and k 0.94 for interrogate 2.Collapsing across the conditions, at Interview 1, 33% (n 30) of the children real a false memory. Thirty per cent (n 9) of these children assented to the false events immediately, that is prior to guided imagery and context reinstatement. thirty-six per cent of the children (n 33), with 67% (n 20) immediately assenting, remembered the false events at Interview 2, x2(1) 26.61, p .001, Cramers V 0.54. nearly of the children who rejected the false events at Interview 2 indicated, disdain the explicit information at Interview 1, that they had discussed the false events with their parents. The adjoin in false memories over time is in line with previous studies with adults and children (e.g.Lindsay et al., 2004 Strange et al., 2006 Wade et al., 2002). Furthermore, 10% (n 9) of the children were classied as having an image of the false events at Interview 1. At Interview 2, this division c hange magnitude to 7% (n 6), x2(1) 58.53, p .001, Cramers V 0.80. Recall that the primary question in this study was whether prevalence information boosts the likeliness of plausible and implausible false memories. dining table 1 shows the percentage and number of children who reported false memories as a unravel of interview and condition.To examine the role of age, event type, and prevalence information in the development of false memories, we conducted a logistic retrogression analysis with the dependent variable being false memory (0 no false memory/images, 1 false memory). In this analysis, we unaccompanied focussed on accepted false memories and did not collapse across false memories and images. Although non-parametric methods, such as logistic regression, often pretermit the statistical office to detect interactions (Sawilowsky, 1990), in that respect are four important points to discover about these data. First, the only signicant interaction found was an sen esce prevalence information interactionat Interview 1. Prevalence information raise the development of 78 year old childrens false memories but not 1112 year old childrens false memories, and this effect occurred at Interview 1 (B 2.16, SE 0.96, Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.