Reducing Misinformation Effects in Older Adults with Cognitive Interview Mnemonics

Reducing Misinformation Effects in Older Adults With Cognitive Interview Mnemonics

Robyn E. Holliday and Joyce E. Humphries Rebecca Milne University of Leicester University of Portsmouth

Amina Memon Lucy Houlder, Amy Lyons, and Ray Bull Royal Holloway, University of London University of Leicester

We examined the effect of a prior Modified Cognitive Interview on young and older adults’ recall of a short film of a staged crime and subsequent reporting of misinformation. Participants viewed the film followed the next day by misinformation presented in a postevent summary. They were then interviewed with either a Modified Cognitive Interview or a control interview followed by a recognition memory test. A Modified Cognitive Interview elicited more correct details and improved overall accuracy compared to a control interview in both age groups, although the young adults recollected three times more correct information in a Modified Cognitive Interview than the older adults. In both age groups, correct recollections of person and action details were higher in a Modified Cognitive Interview than a control interview. Importantly, older adults who were interviewed with a Modified Cognitive Interview were not susceptible to misinformation effects.

Keywords: aging, Cognitive Interview, misinformation effect, eyewitness, suggestibility

Obtaining reliable eyewitness testimony from older witnesses tend to perform worse than young adults when recalling statements has become a key concern to policy makers and professionals in (Nyberg, Baekman, Erngrund, Olofsson, & Nilsson, 1996), prose recent years. Clearly, there is a need for a set of protocols that is (Carlesimo et al., 1998), and long word lists (Cohen, Sandler, & specifically designed to maximize accurate testimony from older Schroeder, 1987). Although only a handful of studies have com- individuals. Such protocols should be theoretically based and be pared young and older adults’ memories in an eyewitness context, subject to rigorous empirical testing. Given the difficulties sur- for the most part the results of this research mirror the findings rounding interviewing older witnesses (rapid forgetting, attention from conventional memory tests. Older adults are less accurate and problems), shortened, developmentally appropriate interview pro- less complete in their recollections of simulated crimes whether tocols would be extremely useful. We examined whether a Mod- questioned immediately or up to 1 week later (Aizpurua, Garcia- ified Cognitive Interview modeled on Holliday’s (2003b) protocol Bajos, & Migueles, 2009; Brimacombe, Quinton, Nance, & Gar- was effective in increasing older witness’s memories of a simu- rioch, 1997; Craik, Byrd, & Swanson, 1987; List, 1986; Yarmey & lated robbery. We also examined whether this interview protocol Kent, 1980).1 Why is this so? reduced older adults’ subsequent acceptance of misinformation as A number of theoretical accounts have been proposed to explain has been reported with other vulnerable witness groups such as young children (Holliday, 2003b; Holliday & Albon, 2004). these ubiquitous findings (for a review, see Luo & Craik, 2008). Typically, such accounts have focused on cognitive deficits in What Is Known About Older Adults’ Memories? terms of speed of processing (e.g., Salthouse, 1985), available processing resources (e.g., Hastroudi, Johnson, & Chrosniak, In general, research reports that memory accuracy declines with 1990), reduced cognitive control (e.g., Park & Hedden, 2001), advancing age in a number of contexts. For example, older adults semantic knowledge (e.g., Wegesin, Jacobs, Zubin, Ventura, & Stern, 2000), associate deficits (Naveh-Benjamin, 2000), feature This article was published Online First March 28, 2011. binding (e.g., Chalfonte & Johnson, 1996), effortful self-initiated Robyn E. Holliday and Joyce E. Humphries, School of Psychology, processing (e.g., Craik, 1994), and environmental support (e.g., School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; Craik, 1986, 1994). The environmental support account of memory Rebecca Milne, Institute of Criminal justice Studies, University of Ports- recall proposes that older adults’ memories will be enhanced if mouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom; Amina Memon, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, United contextual cues are available at the time of recall. If this theory is Kingdom; Lucy Houlder, Amy Lyons and Ray Bull, School of Psychology, correct, it is expected that the context reinstatement instruction of University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. This research was funded by The Leverhulme Trust. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robyn E. 1 For a discussion of face identification research with older adults (which Holliday, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, United is beyond the scope of this paper), see Bartlett and Memon (2007) and Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] Memon, Gabbert, and Hope (2004).

1191 1192 HOLLIDAY ET AL. the Cognitive Interview should increase recall in the older partic- simple vocabulary, both of which could be taken as condescending ipants during this interview. and, potentially harmful to the establishment of good rapport (e.g., La Tourette & Meeks, 2000). The Cognitive Interview Dornburg and McDaniel (2006) reported increased recall of correct details with Cognitive Interview instructions when young The original Cognitive Interview was developed to improve and older adults were tested repeatedly on their memories for a eyewitness testimony of adults (Geiselman et al., 1984). The four story. There are a number of methodological differences between cognitive components are based on two memory principles, en- this research and others discussed in this paper. Participants were coding specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and varied retrieval not interviewed using the phased approach characteristic of Cog- (Tulving, 1974). Retrieval of a particular memory is more effective nitive Interview protocols and there was no question phase. More- if there is an overlap in specific features from the encoding and over, they were given one Cognitive Interview instruction per retrieval contexts (Flexser & Tulving, 1978). This overlap is retrieval attempt over some weeks. We know that much new facilitated by two of the components: (1) context reinstatement: information is recollected in the question phase of Cognitive Mental reconstruction of the physical and personal contexts sur- Interviews (Holliday, 2003b). In the current study, interviewers rounding the event to be recalled, and (2) report all: Relate all asked open-ended and specific closed questions (cf. Achieving details regardless of their perceived relevance. Distinct memory Best Evidence, 2001) about details recollected in the free recall traces can also be accessed via retrieval methods that minimize phase. reliance on expectations and prior knowledge (Bower, 1967; Tulv- Two studies by Wright and Holliday (2007a, 2007b) provided ing, 1974). Varied retrieval is facilitated by a further two compo- further evidence that a revised Cognitive Interview can increase nents: (3) change perspective: Recall the event from the perspec- correct remembering in older witnesses. In the first, very older tive of another participant or location in the same event, and (4) adults’ (75–95 years) memories of a filmed car theft were in- change order: For example, recall the event in reverse order, from creased by 30% with Cognitive Interview instructions (Wright and the last temporal detail recalled to the first detail recalled. Holliday, 2007a). In a second study, Wright and Holliday (2007b) The Enhanced Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) compared the recollections of very older adults (75–96 years) who retains these four cognitive instructions. The Enhanced Cognitive had cognitive impairments detected on the Mini-Mental State Interview also underlines the importance of social dynamics and Examination (MMSE) (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975) with communication principles such as building rapport, witness com- very older adults without cognitive impairments on this test. Those patible questioning, focused retrieval, and Transfer of Control of with low MMSE scores (under 27) recalled fewer correct details the interview to the interviewee (Wright & Holliday, 2003). Social and were less accurate than those with high (normal) scores factors such as negative stereotypes about memory in older age can (between 27 and 30). Importantly, however, both high and low make older adults overly cautious about reporting information MMSE older adults reported substantially more correct informa- (Hess & Hinton, 2006). The Enhanced Cognitive Interview may tion about action, person, object, and location details when given ameliorate this because the importance of reporting all remem- revised a Cognitive Interview. bered details regardless of their perceived relevance (Report all Two studies have reported no improvements in remembering instruction) is emphasized to the interviewee, and because the with Cognitive Interviews (McMahon, 2000; Searcy, Bartlett, Transfer of Control instruction stresses that the witness is the Memon, & Swanson, 2001). In the first, McMahon (2000) com- expert about the to-be-remembered event. What is known about pared the amount of correct, incorrect, and confabulated details older adults’ memories when they are interviewed with an En- reported by young (18–50 years) and older adults (60–88 years) hanced Cognitive Interview? when each was given a full Cognitive Interview (using all four cognitive instructions) or a control interview 30 min after viewing Older Adults and the Enhanced Cognitive Interview a simulated crime film. Young adults reported more correct details than older adults in a control interview, but no advantage of a full A handful of studies have assessed the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview was found. It is possible that the small num- Cognitive Interview techniques (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) with bers of participants in each experimental condition (n ϭ 10) were older adults and some of these have limitations (for reviews, see not sufficient to detect an effect. Furthermore, the age range in Holliday, Brainerd, Reyna, & Humphries, 2009; Memon, Meiss- McMahon’s “young” group was quite different from other studies, ner, & Fraser, in press). In an early study, young (18–35 years) and and included middle-aged participants. In the second study, Searcy older (65–80 years) adults viewed a film of a simulated robbery et al. examined whether the context reinstatement instruction fa- (Mello & Fisher, 1996). Thirty minutes later, they were given a cilitated young (18–30 years) and older (62–79 years) adults’ standard police interview, a full Cognitive Interview comprising correct identifications of a confederate in a line-up, 1 month after all four cognitive instructions, or the shorter Cognitive Interview in they had met this person. It did not. Wright and Holliday (2007a) which the change perspective instruction was omitted. Older adults suggested that the context reinstatement instruction may be useful recalled more correct information than young adults when given only after short delays when meaningful associations between the Cognitive Interviews. However, these findings should be inter- event and the context are strong. preted cautiously because the young and older groups were given The current study addressed some of the limitations of the different types of Cognitive Interview instructions; the older adults studies discussed above. First, sample size was increased. Second, were given the shorter Cognitive Interview whereas young adults older participants were recruited from the community rather than were given the full Cognitive Interview. In addition, the interview- from a university course, and hence were representative of the ers of the older adults slowed the pace of the interview and used older adult population in general. Third, young and older partici- REDUCING MISINFORMATION IN OLDER ADULTS 1193 pants were given the exact same interview protocols. Fourth, in Marche, 1999). Both the co-existence and trace-strength accounts addition to obtaining measures of the total correct, incorrect, and assume dual memory traces (original and postevent misinforma- confabulated details, recollected information was classified action) at the point of retrieval. According to the source-monitoring cording to whether it was provided during the free recall or framework, the misinformation effect occurs when people claim to question phases of the interview, and in the categories of action, have seen information in the original event that was suggested person, object, or the location. Such information provides a more afterwards (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). Source mis- precise evaluation of recall (Holliday, 2003b; Stein & Memon, attributions can occur if there is no memory for the original event 2006; Wright & Holliday, 2007a, 2007b). Fifth, because cognitive because it was not encoded, or it has been forgotten (Lindsay & decline could lead to an overestimation of age-related effects, all Johnson, 1989; for recent reviews, see Lindsay, 2008; Mitchell & participants completed the MMSE (Folstein et al., 1975) (cf. Johnson, 2009). Other theorists propose that the misinformation is Mueller-Johnson & Ceci, 2004; Wright & Holliday, 2007a, 2007b) reported for social demand reasons such as social pressure (Rey- that evaluates cognitive status; the picture scale from the Pyramids sen, 2007), social influence (e.g., Hoffman, 2001), conformity and Palm Trees test (PPT; Howard & Paterson, 1992) that tests (Gabbert, Memon, & Wright, 2006; Wright & Klumpp, 2004), understanding of meaning, and the Beck Depression Inventory– compliance and/or response biases inherent in the standard (Lof- Short form (BDI-SF; Beck & Beck, 1972) between the presenta- tus) test paradigm (e.g., McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985; see Ayers tion of the postevent summary and the interview phase. & Reder, 1998; Holliday, Reyna, & Hayes, 2002, for reviews). The extant research concerning older adults’ acceptance of The Misinformation Effect misinformation is small in comparison to the large body of child research. Nonetheless, the picture that emerges is one of greater The current research adopted a broad definition of the misin- susceptibility to misinformation in older age (Cohen & Faulkner, formation effect, which states that memories of a witnessed event 1989; Gabbert, Memon, Allan, & Wright, 2004; Karpel, Hoyer, & can be influenced by cognitive factors such as memory and atten- Toglia, 2001; Loftus, Levidow, & Duensing, 1992; Marche, Jor- tion and social factors such as social pressure, compliance with dan, & Owre, 2002; Mitchell, Johnson, & Mather, 2003; Mueller- authority figures, and acquiescence (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Holli- Johnson & Ceci, 2004; Roediger & Geraci, 2007), which is con- day, 2003a, 2003b; Reysen, 2007). Much of the evidence concern- fidently held (Dodson & Krueger, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2003). ing the mechanisms underlying the misinformation effect has been Only two studies have reported no misinformation effects in older collected using an adaptation of the standard three-stage paradigm adults (Bornstein, Cherry, Witt, & Greene, 2000; Coxon & Val- introduced by Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978). In this paradigm, entine, 1997). It should be noted that older adults’ memories for participants witness an event (e.g., film, slides) followed by mis- original (control) details on which no misinformation was given information about that event in a postevent summary before they was near floor in these studies. To detect an effect of misinforma- take a memory test on their memories for the originally witnessed tion, control item accuracy needs to be higher than accuracy on event. When asked to choose between the original event and the misled items (Mueller-Johnson & Ceci, 2004; see Payne, Toglia, & postevent misleading details, research with adults (e.g., Loftus, Anastasi, 1994, for a review). Donders, Hoffman, & Schooler, 1989; Loftus et al., 1978) and children (e.g., Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987; Holliday, 2003a, The Current Study 2007b; Holliday & Albon, 2004; Holliday, Douglas, & Hayes, 1999; Holliday & Hayes, 2000; Lampinen & Smith, 1995; Ode- A major aim was to test a developmentally Modified Cognitive gard, Cooper, Holliday, & Ceci, 2010) has consistently found that Interview protocol adapted from Holliday (2003b) on a group of misled participants are significantly more likely than controls who older participants to see whether a shorter but effective interview have not been misled to report the misinformation as having been protocol, in terms of correct recollections, accuracy, and complete- part of the original event (for a review, see Reyna, Holliday, & ness than is currently available to interview older adults, was Marche, 2002). In the current study, the standard three-stage viable. This Modified Cognitive Interview omitted the change paradigm was adopted. perspective instruction (Holliday, 2003b; Mello & Fisher, 1996; Why do people report the misinformation rather than the orig- Searcy et al., 2001; Wright & Holliday, 2007a) because of the inal details? There is still no clear consensus in the literature to concern that it may promote fabrication in adult witnesses (Boon answer this question. Candidate theoretical explanations can be & Noon, 1994). A second aim was to categorize the reported broadly classified as memory interference or response bias/social details in terms of action, object, person, and location (Holliday, demand accounts. For example, the memory trace-alteration ac- 2003a, 2003b). We expected that the young adults would provide count proposes that the original event memories are altered, up- more correct details than the older adults (Wright & Holliday, dated, or replaced by the postevent misinformation (e.g., Loftus et 2007a). Third, we wanted to test whether a Modified Cognitive al., 1978). Retrieval interference accounts, on the other hand, argue Interview would reduce misinformation acceptance in adults as has that access to the original event memories is blocked by (e.g., been found with children (Holliday, 2003b). Morton et al., 1985) or co-exist with (e.g., Christianson & Och- alek, 1993; Reder & Schunn, 1996) the postevent misinformation Method memory trace. Memory trace-strength accounts hold that postevent misinformation degrades memory by either altering the original Participants trace or by preventing its retrieval or both, with the amount of degradation dependent upon the strength of the original event Thirty-one young males and females (M age ϭ 22 years; age memory (e.g., Brainerd & Reyna, 1998; Holliday et al., 1999; range: 19–24 years) and 28 old males and females (M age ϭ 66 1194 HOLLIDAY ET AL. years; age range: 60–73 years) took part in this study. The young Importantly, scores on these three tests did not vary by age group adults were college students who participated for course credits. or interview condition. The older adults resided in the community of a large city and were recruited in response to leaflets, newspaper advertisements, and radio broadcasts. Groups were matched on years of education Procedure (between 15 and 16 years) and ethnicity (95% White, 5% other). The study was conducted by two female researchers (aged 22 All participants achieved normal scores on tests of cognitive years) in five phases over 2 days. These researchers were trained functioning (see below). All participants were tested individually in all aspects of the experimental procedure by a senior researcher, in a quiet room at the college. and they received 20 hr of training in each interview technique by a trained interviewer. Participants were tested individually. In Design Phase 1, a researcher showed the short film that depicted a simulated robbery. Participants were told to pay attention to the film ϫ The design was a 2 (age group: young adults, older adults) 2 because they would be asked questions about it at a later stage. In ϫ (interview: modified Cognitive, Structured) 2 (recognition test Phase 2, the next day, a different researcher read the participant a item type: control, misled) with the first two factors between- postevent summary of the film they had seen the previous day. In subjects and the last factor within-subjects. Phase 3, this researcher administered the three screening instru- ments that are documented above. After ϳ40 min, the researcher Materials who showed the film in Phase 1 interviewed the participant with either the Modified Cognitive or Structured (control) Interview A 2-min, 36-sec film of a purse-snatch robbery, which contained (Phase 4). Interviews were audio-taped and began with 5 min of a large number of quantifiable details, was chosen as the stimulus rapport-building. Next, in the Structured Interview, participants event. Adults were administered one of two interview protocols: a were asked to report the film content without making up anything Structured Interview as a control interview modified from that of up. In the free recall phase, participants were asked: “Tell me ¨ Khnken (1993), or a Modified Cognitive Interview containing the about the film in your own words,” which was followed by a Context Reinstatement, Report All, Change Order instructions (see 2 second request for more information (remember more?). In the Appendix for interview protocols). For counterbalancing pur- question phase that followed, participants were asked open-ended, poses, there were two versions of the postevent narrative each of specific, and closed questions only about the details they had which were a summary of the film (presented in the same temporal reported in the free recall phase. In the closure phase, the inter- order) and contained six misleading details about previously seen viewer summarized the remembered details and invited questions. details from the film (misled items), and neutral information about The Modified Cognitive Interview and the Structured Interview the other six details (control items). The misled items were con- protocols were the same with the exception that in the former the sistent with the syntactic and semantic context of the film (see three Cognitive Interview instructions were implemented in the Appendix, for postevent narratives and recognition test questions). free recall phase of the interview, and the instruction to form a Three tests to assess cognitive impairment were given to all mental image before questions about specific details recalled in the participants in Phase 3 (in the same order). The MMSE (Folstein question phase. After rapport was established, the Report All et al., 1975) consists of 21 items that assess memory recall, the instruction was given: “I want you to tell me everything you can ability to follow verbal commands, and the ability to orientate remember, every detail you can remember even if you think it may oneself in one’s environment. A person who scores 26 or lower be irrelevant.” The Report All instruction was immediately fol- (out of 30) is considered to have a significant cognitive impairment lowed by the Context Reinstatement instruction in which the (Whitlatch, Feinberg, & Tucke, 2005). All our participants scored participant was asked to mentally reinstate the personal and phys- above 26. The Pyramids and Palm Trees test (PPT: Howard & ical context in which the film was shown, as follows, “Close your Paterson, 1992) is a nonverbal scale that assesses the ability to eyes. Picture yourself back in the room where you watched the extract semantic meaning from pictures and words. We used the film. How were you feeling? What could you see in the room? picture subscale in which three cards are given for each test item; What could you hear in the room?” The participant then recalled a target picture and two pictures from which the testee is asked to all they could remember. Next, the Change Order instruction was select the picture that goes with the target picture. For example, the given to recall the film details in reverse order beginning from the target picture “waistcoat” is placed above a picture of a “necklace” last temporal detail reported: “Now I want you to tell me the very and a picture of a “bow tie”; the testee chooses which item goes last thing you remember in the film” (recall), then “What happened with the waistcoat. Scores of 46 or below (out of 52) are indicative just before that?” This latter prompt was continued until no further of significant cognitive impairment (Hodges & Patterson, 1995). details could be recollected or the beginning of the film was All our participants scored above 46. Depression has been linked reached. The question phase began with the instruction to form a to memory deficits (e.g., Burt, Zember, & Niedereche, 1995). mental image before questions about specific details recalled in the Hence, all our participants completed the 13-item Beck Depression free recall phase. An important point to note about information Inventory–Short Form (BDI-SF: Beck & Beck, 1972). The recalled in the question phase of both interviews is that such BDI-SF is a self-report scale in which respondents rate the severity information is new and is based on information reported in the free of symptoms on a four-point scale ranging from: “I do not feel I am a complete failure” (score 0) to “I feel I am a complete failure as a person” (score 3). A score higher than 10 points is viewed as 2 For a discussion of control interviews in this literature, see Fisher indicative of depression. All our participants scored below 10. (1996) and Memon and Stevenage (1996). REDUCING MISINFORMATION IN OLDER ADULTS 1195 recall phase (cf. Holliday, 2003a, 2003b; Holliday & Albon, 2004; found for duration; Modified Cognitive Interviews were signifi- Wright & Holliday, 2007a, 2007b). For example, if the participant cantly longer (M ϭ 22.44 min) than Structured (control) interviews reported seeing a woman who was robbed in the free recall phase, (M ϭ 14.20 min). Hence, all subsequent analyses of incorrect the interviewer asked the participant to form an image in their details included duration as a covariate. Tukey’s (HSD) post hoc mind of this woman: “Close your eyes. Get a picture in your mind tests were performed on all significant interactions (p Ͻ .05). The of this woman.” When they indicated they had done this the mean numbers of correct, incorrect and confabulated details in the interviewer asked a series of questions about this woman to obtain categories of person, action, object, and location recalled in new information, for example: “you said the woman was carrying the free recall and question phases of the interviews are presented a bag. Tell me more about this bag?” The closure phase followed in Table 1. the same procedure as for the Structured Interview. After the interview, the participant completed a recognition memory test to Accuracy assess acceptance of original event details and postevent misinformation (Phase 5). This test contained 12 questions about 12 items: Accuracy rates were calculated by dividing the proportion of 6 original (control) from the film clip viewed in Phase 1, and 6 total correct details recalled in each age group, interview phase, items on which misinformation was given in the postevent narra- and interview type by the proportion of total details recalled (see ϫ tive in Phase 2 (see Appendix). Participants were told that they Table 1)., Two separate 2 (age group) 2 (interview) ANOVAs would be asked questions about the film some of which were old on accuracy rates in the two interview phases were performed. and some new; they should respond “yes” if they remembered the Main effects of interview were found in the free recall phase, F(1, ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ detail (old) and “no” if they did not (new). 55) 4.54, MSE .002, p .05, p .076, and in the question ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ phase, F(1, 55) 4.74, MSE .006, p .05, p .079. Accuracy rates were higher in both phases of Modified Cognitive Coding and Scoring of the Interviews ϭ ϭ Interviews (MMCI FR .93, MMCI QP .86) than in Structured ϭ ϭ Film details reported during interviews were coded as correct, (control) Interviews (MSI FR .91, MSI QP .82). No age differ- incorrect, and confabulated in the categories of person, action, ences were found. object, and location, with one point given for each unit of information reported in the free recall and question phases (cf. Holli- Completeness day, 2003a, 2007b). Every piece of information was scored the first time it was mentioned whether it was correct or not. For The total number of correct details recalled was divided by the example, the statement, “a woman stood at a cash machine at a total number of possible correct details to give a proportion com- supermarket” was coded as - “woman” (1-person), “stood” (1- pleteness score for each participant (cf. Holliday, 2003b) (see ϫ action) “cash machine” (1-object) “at the supermarket” (1- Table 1). A 2 (age group) 2 (interview) ANOVA on these scores location). This coding system produced a total of 647 details in the revealed main effects for age group and for interview, and an Age F ϭ p Ͻ ␩2 ϭ film: 249 person, 117 action, 166 object, and 115 location. A detail Group X Interview interaction, (1, 55) 8.64, .01, p was coded as correct if it corresponded with the film (e.g., “red .136. For young adults, correct recollections in Modified Cognitive bag” when this was shown), as incorrect if it was discrepant from Interviews were more complete than in Structured Interviews M ϭ M ϭ the film (e.g., “green bag” instead of “red bag”), and confabulated ( MCI .21, SI .14). This effect was not found for the older M ϭ M ϭ if it did not appear in the film (e.g., “a cat”). Interviews were adults ( MCI .16, SI .15). transcribed, coded, and scored by three independent coders who were blind to the experimental hypotheses about the interview Recall Across Interview Phases protocols. Inter-coder reliabilities were calculated for total correct, Three separate 2 (age group) ϫ 2 (interview) ANOVAs exam- total incorrect, and total confabulations and were all around 95% ined recollection of the numbers of correct, incorrect, and con- agreement. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of agreement was moder- fabulated details collapsed across interview phases (free recall, ate, 0.577, and above chance levels. The duration of each interview question). Main effects were found for (1) age group, F(1, 55) ϭ (in minutes) and the number of questions asked were noted. The Ͻ ␩2 ϭ 6.63, p .05, p .108; overall, young adults remembered more recognition test data were scored by a new researcher who was correct details (M ϭ 114.19) than older adults (M ϭ 99.43), and blind to the interview condition in which participants were placed. ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ (2) interview, F(1, 55) 19.70, p .001, p .264, more correct details were reported in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M ϭ Results 121.54) than in Structured Interviews (M ϭ 94.23). These main effects interacted significantly, Age Group ϫ Interview, F(1, ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ Interview Analyses 55) 8.64, p .01, p .136. Young adults remembered more correct details in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M ϭ 136.60) ϫ Initially, three separate 2 (age group) 2 (interview) than older adults (M ϭ 104.15), but not in Structured Interviews ANCOVAs with duration, number of questions asked, and inter- ϭ ϭ (Myoung 93.19, Molder 95.33). No significant effects were viewer as covariates were performed on the total numbers of found for incorrect or confabulated details. correct, incorrect, and confabulated details. For total correct and total confabulated details, no main effects were found hence all Recall in the Free Recall and Question Phases subsequent analyses of these details omitted the three covariates. Similarly, for total incorrect details, no main effect of number of A series of 2 (age group) ϫ 2 (interview) ANOVAs examined questions or interviewer was found. However, a main effect was recall of the numbers of correct, incorrect, and confabulated 1196 HOLLIDAY ET AL.

Table 1 Mean Numbers of Correct, Incorrect, and Confabulated Details Recalled by Interview Condition (SDs Are in Parentheses)

Structured (control) Interview Modified Cognitive Interview

Young Old Young Old

Correct free recall phase Action 16.44 (5.54) 18.87 (4.81) 24.13 (5.88) 22.38 (5.19) Person 16.06 (7.57) 18.20 (5.12) 24.00 (12.67) 20.85 (9.46) Object 7.50 (3.85) 8.07 (3.54) 10.93 (7.08) 7.23 (3.44) Location 10.50 (3.93) 13.40 (4.05) 15.53 (6.30) 13.00 (5.24) Correct question phase Action 5.44 (3.61) 4.47 (3.23) 7.40 (3.66) 5.62 (3.40) Person 22.56 (7.72) 20.73 (9.63) 33.33 (16.19) 23.23 (8.11) Object 6.44 (4.24) 4.53 (3.96) 8.80 (4.75) 5.46 (3.55) Location 8.25 (4.06) 7.07 (3.56) 11.80 (5.80) 6.46 (3.07) Incorrect free recall phase Action 2.19 (1.72) 1.67 (0.72) 2.67 (2.09) 1.92 (1.32) Person 1.62 (1.59) 2.47 (1.73) 1.87 (1.87) 2.08 (2.10) Object 0.38 (0.62) 0.87 (1.41) 0.47 (1.30) 0.46 (0.88) Location 0.50 (0.73) 0.67 (0.98) 0.53 (0.92) 0.31 (0.75) Incorrect question phase Action 0.94 (1.34) 1.00 (1.07) 0.80 (1.15) 0.46 (0.52) Person 5.88 (4.02) 5.93 (4.51) 8.07 (5.98) 4.46 (3.55) Object 0.56 (1.09) 0.87 (0.99) 2.20 (1.70) 0.62 (1.12) Location 1.00 (0.97) 0.67 (1.80) 0.80 (1.15) 0.38 (0.65) Confabulated free recall phase Action 0.06 (0.25) 0.20 (0.56) 0.07 (0.26) 0.00 (0.00) Person 0.06 (0.25) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.26) 0.08 (0.28) Object 0.06 (0.25) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.08 (0.28) Location 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.08 (0.28) Confabulated question phase Action 0.31 (0.60) 0.07 (0.26) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Person 0.19 (0.75) 0.13 (0.35) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) Object 0.38 (0.62) 0.27 (0.46) 0.00 (0.00) 0.31 (0.75) Location 0.12 (0.34) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.26) 0.00 (0.00) Accuracy 0.87 (0.04) 0.87 (0.04) 0.89 (0.05) 0.90 (0.04) Completeness 0.14 (0.03) 0.15 (0.04) 0.21 (0.04) 0.16 (0.04) Misinformation intrusions 0.38 (0.62) 1.33 (1.72) 0.87 (1.19) 0.46 (0.66)

ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ details in the free recall and question phases of both the interaction details, F(1, 55) 15.94, MSE 28.92, p .001, p views.3 In the free recall phase, more correct details were recalled .225. More correct person (M ϭ 22.54) and action (M ϭ 23.32), in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M ϭ 69.39) than in Structured details were recalled in Modified Cognitive Interviews than in ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ ϭ ϭ Interviews (M 54.39), F(1, 55) 7.76, p .01, p .124. No Structured Interviews (Mperson 17.10, Maction 17.61). An Age effects were found for incorrect or confabulated details. Group X Interview interaction was found for location details, F(1, ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ In the question phase, main effects were found for (1) age group, 55) 15.94, p .05, p .074. For young adults only, more young adults recalled more correct details (M ϭ 52.03) than older correct location details were recalled in Modified Cognitive Inter- ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ adults (M 38.64), F(1, 55) 9.01, p .01, p .141, and (2) views (M ϭ 15.53) than in Structured Interviews (M ϭ 10.50). No interview, more correct details were recalled in Modified Cogni- other significant effects were found. ϭ ϭ tive Interviews (M 52.14) than in Structured Interviews (M In the question phase, main effects of age group were found for ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ 39.84), F(1, 55) 6.64, p .05, p .108. A main effect of age ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ correct person, F(1, 55) 4.32, p .05, p .073, object, F(1, group was found for recall of incorrect details; young adults 55) ϭ 5.79, p Ͻ .05, ␩2 ϭ .095, and location, F(1, 55) ϭ 8.51, p Ͻ ϭ ϭ p recalled more incorrect details (M 10.03) than older adults (M .01, ␩2 ϭ .134, details. Young adults recalled more correct person ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ p 7.29), F(1, 54) 5.42, p .05, p .091. Note that no evidence (M ϭ 27.77), object (M ϭ 7.58), and location (M ϭ 9.97) details of age differences in accuracy was found in this phase (see above). ϭ ϭ ϭ than older adults (Mperson 21.89, Mobject 4.96, Mlocation No effects were found for confabulated details. 6.79). A main effect of interview for correct person details was ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ found, F(1, 55) 5.34, p .05, p .088; more correct person Recall of Specific Types of Information details were reported in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M ϭ The numbers of correct, incorrect, and confabulated details in the free recall and question phases of both interviews were further 3 Separate analyses were performed for the two interview phases be- classified according to the categories of person, action, object, and cause the information recalled in each phase is not independent. Details ϫ location details. A series of 2 (age group) 2 (interview) recalled in the Free Recall phase are the sources for questions in the 3 ANOVAs were performed on these variables. Question phase (cf. Holliday, 2003a, 2003b; Holliday & Albon, 2004; In the free recall phase, main effects of interview were found for Memon, Wark, Holley, Bull, & Kh¨nken, 1997; Wright & Holliday, 2007a, ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ correct person, F(1, 55) 4.97, p .05, p .083, and correct 2007b). REDUCING MISINFORMATION IN OLDER ADULTS 1197

28.64) than in Structured Interviews (M ϭ 21.68). An Age Group given a Modified Cognitive Interview, however, no evidence of a ϭ X Interview interaction was found for incorrect object details, F(1, misinformation effect was found (Mdiff .02). No misinformation ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ 54) 7.10, p .05, p .116; young adults recalled more effects were found for young adults in either interview condition. incorrect object details in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M ϭ ϭ 2.20) than older adults (M .62), but not in Structured Interviews Discussion ϭ ϭ (Myoung .56, Molder .87). A main effect of interview was found for recall of confabulated action details, F(1, 55) ϭ 4.55, p Ͻ .05, The first important finding was that participants who were given ␩2 ϭ ϭ p .076; more were recalled in Structured Interviews (M .19) the Modified Cognitive Interview recalled more correct informa- than in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M ϭ .00), although the tion and their reports were more accurate overall than participants absolute numbers were small or nonexistent. given the Structured (control) Interview. Significantly, the Modi- fied Cognitive Interview increased older adults’ reporting of cor- Misinformation Intrusions: Interviews rect details in both the free recall and question phases. With regard to the types of information recalled, the Modified Cognitive Inter- The numbers of misinformation intrusions reported in both view increased adults’ memories of person and action details, as interviews were calculated for each participant. Intrusions were has been reported previously with adults (Wright & Holliday, defined as details on which misinformation was presented in the 2007a) and children (Holliday, 2003b; Milne & Bull, 2003), with- ϫ postevent narrative. A 2 (age group) 2 (interview) ANOVA on out a concomitant increase in incorrect or confabulated details these data revealed an Age Group X Interview interaction, F(1, (Wright & Holliday, 2007a). Indeed, both young and older adults ϭ ϭ Ͻ ␩2 ϭ 55) 5.20, MSE 1.31, p .05, p .086. Post hoc tests recalled twice as many correct person and action than object demonstrated that for the older adults, fewer details were recalled details during the free recall phase (Holliday, 2003a, 2003b; Hol- ϭ in Modified Cognitive Interviews (M .46) than in Structured liday & Albon, 2004; Memon et al., 1997; Milne et al., 1995), and ϭ Interviews (M 1.33). No significant differences were found for 25% more correct person details in the question phase (Holliday, ϭ ϭ the young adults (MMCI .87, MSI .38). 2003b). Practically, interviews with law professionals in real-life settings necessarily demand that witnesses provide an accurate Recognition Test Analyses: The Misinformation Effect description of an alleged offender and his or her actions. Several other results were found to be age-related. First, the The proportions correct for control (proportion “old”) and mis- older adults recalled fewer correct details and were less complete led items (proportion “new”) were calculated for each participant. in their recollections than the young adults, as reported by others All analyses were performed after collapsing across postevent (e.g., Aizpura et al., 2009; Brimacombe et al., 1997; Coxon & narrative version (1 or 2) because preliminary analyses found no Valentine, 1997; Craik et al., 1987; List, 1986; Wright & Holliday, reliable effect of narrative version. Table 2 illustrates the mean 2007a; Yarmey & Kent, 1980). Second, the type of interview proportions correct in each experimental condition. influenced correct recollections. Modified Cognitive Interviews A 2 (age group) ϫ 2 (interview) ϫ 2 (item type: control, misled) increased correct remembering in both age groups but this increase ANOVA with the item type factor within-participants was per- was three times larger for the young adults than the older adults formed on the proportions correct. A main effect was found for (31 and 10%, respectively). The type of interview also influenced control versus misled item types, F(1, 55) ϭ 5.28, p Ͻ .05, ␩2 ϭ p the kind of information reported. For young adults only, 33% more .088; across interview conditions and age groups, correct recogni- correct location information was reported in Modified Cognitive tion of control items (M ϭ .71) was higher than for misled items Interviews. Completeness of recollections was 5% higher in Mod- (M ϭ .63), which is evidence of a misinformation effect. A main ified Cognitive Interviews, but only in the young adults. Third, the effect of age group was also found, F(1, 55) ϭ 10.03, p Ͻ .01, type of information recollected differed by age. The older adults ␩2 ϭ .154. These main effects were qualified by an interaction p recalled fewer correct location details during free recall, and fewer with interview, Age Group X Item Type X Interview, F(1, 55) ϭ correct person, object, and location details during questioning than 4.45, p Ͻ .05, ␩2 ϭ .075). A misinformation effect (i.e., the mean p the young adults. Yet, memory for action details was stable across difference between correct recognition of control and misled items young and older participants. Taken together, these results suggest (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Holliday et al., 1999) was found for older that memory for person, object, and location information may adults given a Structured Interview (M ϭ .30). For older adults diff decline earlier in old age than memory for details about actions. These findings accord with earlier work by Wright and Holliday Table 2 (2007a) and are important because there is little evidence about Mean Proportions Correct for Control and Misled Item Types how memory for different types of details changes with advancing as a Function of Interview Condition and Age Group (SDs Are age. Surprisingly, young adults recollected more incorrect object in Parentheses) details in the question phase of Modified Cognitive Interviews than older adults, although the absolute numbers were small (2 and Structured (control) Modified Cognitive 0.6 details, respectively). We can find no other studies that report Interview Interview such a finding. Importantly, however, there was no evidence that Young Old Young Old accuracy was comprised in the young adults. How might the Modified Cognitive Interview used here improve Item type memories for a simulated crime? Remember that an important Control .73 (.19) .70 (.18) .74 (.08) .69 (.19) feature of this interview is the context reinstatement instruction, Misled .74 (.25) .40 (.24) .71 (.24) .67 (.12) whereby the witness is asked to close his or her eyes and to 1198 HOLLIDAY ET AL. mentally reinstate the physical and personal contexts in which the older adults’ memories were disproportionately affected by poste- to-be-remembered event was experienced. There is considerable vent misinformation (Cohen & Faulkner, 1989; Gabbert et al., evidence that memory is enhanced if the context in which the event 2004; Karpel et al., 2001; Marche et al., 2002; Mitchell et al., was witnessed/experienced overlaps with the context in which the 2003; Mueller-Johnson & Ceci, 2004; Roediger & Geraci, 2007). event is recalled, a phenomenon known as “encoding specificity” Specifically, acceptance of misinformation on a recognition test (Tulving & Thomson, 1973). There is also evidence that if mem- was dependent upon the type of prior interview as well as age; only ory retrieval is performed with eyes closed, as in the present study, older adults given the Structured (control) Interview demonstrated this often results in significantly more detailed (correct) informa- a misinformation effect on this test, and this effect was substantial tion being recalled (Holliday, 2003b; Holliday & Albon, 2004; (30%). Older adults were also more likely to incorporate postevent Perfect, Wagstaff, Moore, Andrews, Cleveland, Newcombe, Bris- misinformation (misinformation intrusions) in their free recall bane, & Brown, 2008; Wright & Holliday, 2007a). Can older during an interview when they were given the Structured Inter- adults use contextual cues to improve their recollections? view. Importantly, however, misinformation effects were elimi- The effect of context on memory in old age is predicted by nated if older adults were given the Modified Cognitive Interview. environmental support theory (Craik, 1986, 1994). Specifically, To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to show that deficits in available processing resources mean that older adults instructions at the point of retrieval can reduce misinformation are less efficient and less likely than younger adults to use con- effects in older adults. No misinformation effects were found for textual cues (e.g., Burke & Light, 1981) spontaneously at encoding young adults in either interview condition. Why? It could be that (e.g., elaboration) and retrieval (e.g., retrieval searches) to aid their the retention interval between viewing the film and exposure to remembering. Yet, we know that if older adults are instructed to postevent misinformation was not sufficiently long enough (1 day) use contextual cues at encoding; for example, in the form of a to allow for forgetting of the film details for the young adults. If so, question as to whether a presented word matched a presented face, the fact that the older adults were suggestible after the same delay that accuracy and completeness of recall are increased (Skinner & suggests they may have greater difficulties with memory storage Fernandes, 2009). Free recall tests are especially difficult for older and/or memory retrieval difficulties in comparison to young adults. adults because they provide few retrieval cues (Craik, 1994; Luo & Yet, if this explanation is correct, one would expect that older and Craik, 2008). In our study, environmental support was given at young adults would also differ in correct recognition of control retrieval in the form of the context reinstatement instruction in the items for which no misinformation was given, but this was not the free recall phase and the form a mental image instruction in the case, both age groups were equally proficient. question phase, both of which serve to focus the interviewee’s We propose that two theoretical accounts of misinformation mind on the details of the original film. To this end, it is likely that effects in old age best explain our findings. One is concerned with the recall improvements seen in the older adults when interviewed memory for source–the source-monitoring framework (Johnson et with a Modified Cognitive Interview were affected in part by the al., 1993), and the other is concerned with memory processes/ availability of contextual cues facilitated by the context reinstate- memory trace strength–the gist hypothesis (Brainerd & Reyna, ment instruction. 2005; Koustaal & Schacter, 1997).4 It is well-known that older Two additional pieces of evidence that favor a contextual ac- adults make more source-monitoring errors than young adults count of our findings are to do with the individual Cognitive because they misattribute the source of their memories to the Interview instructions. We noted that the absolute numbers of postevent misinformation instead of to the original event (Hash- correct information recollected under the Change order instruction troudi, Johnson, & Chrosniak, 1989; Henkel, Johnson, & De in the free recall phase was very small (less than 2%). This means that the locus of the positive effects of Modified Cognitive Inter- Leonardis, 1998; McIntyre & Craik, 1987; Mitchell et al., 2003; views on correct recollections in the free recall phase was with the Multhaup, De Leonardis, & Johnson, 1999; Roediger & Geraci, report all and context reinstatement instructions. Note that these 2007; Schacter, Kaszniak, Kihlstrom, & Valdiserri, 1991; Searcy instructions are given together in that order in the protocol of et al., 1999; Wegesin et al., 2000). Moreover, older adults have Fisher and Geiselman (1992) and that used here. In the question difficulties in identifying and using specific details about the phase of a Modified Cognitive Interview, an instruction to create sources of their memories such as the day, time, and place (Dodson a mental image of the item (e.g., of the woman standing at a cash & Krueger, 2006; Ferguson, Hashtroudi, & Johnson, 1992). Some machine) was given immediately before questions about this item. studies have reported that misinformation effects can be mini- Note that the only difference between the two interviews in this mized by having participants take source-monitoring tests that phase is the form an image instruction in the Modified Cognitive encourage close examination of the source of the memories for the Interview. Hence, we can see precisely how this instruction facil- original and the postevent misinformation (e.g., Lindsay & John- 5 itated correct recollections. Indeed, more correct information (i.e., son, 1989; Multhaup et al. 1999). As discussed earlier, we pro- not produced during free recall) was recollected in the Modified Cognitive Interview than the Structured (control) Interview. 4 The two accounts propose similar mechanisms but are theoretically distinct. Misinformation Effects 5 Although the present research was not specifically intended as a test of the source-monitoring account of the misinformation effect it did A major aim of this study was to test whether misinformation incorporate conditions that encouraged a high level of discrimination effects could be minimized if participants, particularly the older between sources; a different experimenter provided the misinformation, adults, were interviewed using a Modified Cognitive Interview. As and adults were presented with a postevent summary 1 day after has been reported in studies that compared young and older adults, viewing the film clip. REDUCING MISINFORMATION IN OLDER ADULTS 1199 pose that the context reinstatement instruction in the free recall tion span, forget faster) and pressures on police and other profes- phase and the form an image instruction in the question phase of sionals to obtain maximum information following a crime (Wright the Modified Cognitive Interview improved older adults’ correct & Holliday, 2005, 2007a). It is acknowledged that these results recollections by encouraging them to use memory retrieval strat- were obtained under laboratory conditions but we believe that, it is egies (e.g., retrieval searches) that they do not, for the most part, important that factors are first tested under controlled experimental implement spontaneously. A likely by-product of this is that they conditions before evaluation in the field (Brainerd & Ornstein, are better able to discriminate the sources of their memories as the 1991; Holliday, 2003b; Holliday et al., 2009). Testing of an original film rather than the postevent misinformation summary. adapted version of the Modified Cognitive Interview protocol for The second theoretical account proposes that remembering in young children (Holliday, 2003b) using a live (staged) event has older age is based predominantly on the familiarity or gist or demonstrated that misinformation effects can minimized in real general meaning of the event to-be-remembered (e.g., Gardner & life contexts (Holliday, 2010) in the older adult population. Java, 1991; Koustaal & Schacter, 1997) rather than on the exact surface information (verbatim). This reliance on gist processing is called “the gist-preference” hypothesis (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005), References a tendency to use gist in remembering. If this hypothesis is correct, Achieving Best Evidence. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.homeofice and the specific details were encoded in the first place, it should be .gov.uk/documents/achieving-best-evidence/ possible to reverse the reliance on gist processing by using a Aizpurua, A., Garcia-Bajos, E., & Migueles, M. (2009). False memories verbatim-focused manipulation (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005). A Cog- for a robbery in young and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, nitive Interview is one such manipulation. As discussed earlier, the 23, 174–187. doi:10.1002/acp.1461 purpose of the context reinstatement instruction in the free recall Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misin- phase and the form an image instruction in the question phase in formation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. the Modified Cognitive Interview used here was to facilitate re- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1–21. trieval of the exact details (verbatim) of the filmed crime. There Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (2007). Eyewitness memory in young and older adults. In R. Lindsay, R. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), are two ways in which our findings fit this theoretical account. Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (Vol. 2, pp. First, misinformation effects were eliminated in older adults when 309–338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. they were interviewed with a Modified Cognitive Interview pro- Beck, A. T., & Beck, R. W. (1972). Screening depressed patients in family tocol that focused their retrieval on the surface details of the event practice: A rapid technique. Postgraduate Medicine, 52, 1181–1185. rather than on the general meaning of the event. Second, the fact Boon, J., & Noon, E. (1994). Changing perspectives in cognitive inter- that the young adults showed no evidence of a misinformation viewing. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 59–69. doi:10.1080/ effect indicates that their memories were likely to be verbatim- 10683169408411936 based. A line of research that should be pursued in future studies Bornstein, B. H., Witt, C. J., Cherry, K. E., & Greene, E. (2000). The with older adults concerns identifying the memory processes un- suggestibility of older witnesses. In M. B. Rothman, B. D. Dunlop, & P. derlying acceptance of misinformation effects as has been evalu- Entzel, (Eds). Elders, crime, and the criminal justice system: Myth, perceptions, and reality in the 21st Century (pp. 149–161). New York: ated with children. Holliday and Hayes (2000) adapted Jacoby’s Springer. process dissociation model of recognition memory to quantify Bower, G. (1967). A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. In K. W. these processes and established that both conscious recollection Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motiva- and unconscious familiarity were implicated in children’s report- tion (Vol. 1, pp. 230–325). New York: Academic Press. ing of misinformation. Whether these processes are involved in Brainerd, C. J., & Ornstein, P. A. (1991). Children’s memory for witnessed older adults’ reporting of misinformation is yet to be determined, events: The developmental backdrop. In J. Doris (Ed.). The suggestibil- but would have important implications for theoretical accounts of ity of children’s recollections (pp. 10–20). Washington, DC: American misinformation effects in old age. Psychological Association. To conclude, the Modified Cognitive Interview facilitated re- Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. New membering of witnessed information by focusing retrieval on the York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780195154054.001.0001 surface details of the filmed crime and on the sources of those Brimacombe, C. A., Quinton, N., Nance, N., & Garrioch, L. (1997). Is age details (whether the film or postevent summary). This result dem- irrelevant? Perceptions of young and old adult eyewitnesses. Law and onstrates that a Cognitive Interview adapted for older adults can be Human Behaviour, 21, 619–634. doi:10.1023/A:1024808730667 an important tool for interviewing them about forensically relevant Burke, D., & Light, L. (1981). Memory and aging: The role of retrieval information. Furthermore, a Modified Cognitive Interview offered processes. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 513–546. doi:10.1037/0033- some protection against the negative effects of misinformation 2909.90.3.513 when administered after the postevent misinformation. The fact Burt, D. B., Zember, M. J., & Niederehe, G. (1995). Depression and that older adults could reject postevent misinformation demon- memory impairment: A meta-analysis of the association, its pattern, and strates that both the original and postevent memory traces were specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 285–305. doi:10.1037/0033- intact, which rules out a strong version of the trace-alteration 2909.117.2.285 Carlesimo, G. A. C., Mauri, M., Graceffa, A. M. S., Fadda, L., Loasses, A., hypothesis of the misinformation effect (e.g., Loftus et al., 1978), Lorusso, S., & Caltagirone, C. (1998). Memory performances in young, but lends support to the co-existence of original and postevent elderly, and very old healthy individuals versus patients with Alzhei- memory traces (e.g., Christianson & Ochalek, 1993). mer’s disease: Evidence for discontinuity between normal and patho- For practitioners, shortened modified interview protocols that logical aging. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, facilitate accurate testimony are important given the potential 20, 14–29. problems surrounding interviewing these witnesses (limited atten- Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child eyewitness: A 1200 HOLLIDAY ET AL.

historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403–439. source monitoring. Psychology & Aging, 4, 106–112. doi:10.1037/0882- doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403 7974.4.1.106 Ceci, S. J., Ross, D. F., & Toglia, M. P. (1987). Suggestibility of children’s Henkel, L. A., Johnson, M. K., & De Leonardis, D. M. (1998). Aging and memory: Psycholegal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychol- source monitoring: Cognitive processes and neuropsychological corre- ogy: General, 116, 38–49. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.1.38 lates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 251–268. Chalfonte, B. L., & Johnson, M. K. (1996). Feature memory and binding doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.3.251 in young and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 24, 403–416. Hess, T. M., & Hinson, J. T. (2006). Age-related variation in the influences Christiaansen, R. E., & Ochalek, K. (1983). Editing misleading information of aging stereotypes on memory in adulthood. Psychology & Aging, 21, from memory: Evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent 621–625. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.621 information. Memory & Cognition, 11, 467–475. Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1995). Is semantic memory consistently Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D. (1989). Age differences in source forgetting: impaired early in the course of Alzheimer’s disease? Neuroanatomical Effects on reality monitoring and on eyewitness testimony. Psychology and diagnostic implications. Neuropsychologia, 33, 441–459. & Aging, 4, 10–17. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.4.1.10 Hoffman, H. G. (2001). Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions. Cohen, R. L., Sandler, S. P., & Schroeder, K. (1987). Aging and memory Memory & Cognition, 29, 394–404. for words and actions: Effects of item repetition and list length. Psy- Holliday, R. E. (2003a). The effect of a prior cognitive interview on chology & Aging, 2, 280–285. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.2.3.280 children’s acceptance of misinformation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Coxon, P., & Valentine, T. (1997). The effects of the age of eyewitnesses on 17, 443–457. doi:10.1002/acp.879 the accuracy and suggestibility of their testimony. Applied Cognitive Psy- Holliday, R. E. (2003b). Reducing misinformation effects in children with chology, 11, 415–430. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11: Cognitive interviews: Dissociating recollection and familiarity. Child 5::AID-ACP4693.0.CO;2-A Development, 74, 728–751. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00565 Craik, F. I. M. (1994). Memory changes in normal aging. Current Direc- Holliday, R. E. (2010). Children’s memories for a live event: The effects tions in Psychological Science, 3, 155–158. doi:10.1111/1467- of Cognitive Interview mnemonics and misinformation. Manuscript in 8721.ep10770653 preparation. Craik, F. I. M. (1996). A functional account of age differences in memory. Holliday, R. E., & Albon, A. J. (2004). Minimising misinformation effects in young children with Cognitive interview mnemonics. Applied Cog- In F. Klix and H. Hagendorf (Eds). Human memory and cognitive nitive Psychology, 18, 263–281. doi:10.1002/acp.973 capabilities: Mechanisms and performances (pp. 409–422). Amster- Holliday, R. E., Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Humphries, J. E. (2009). dam: Elsevier. The Cognitive Interview. In R. Bull & T. Williamson (Eds.), Handbook Craik, F. I. M., Byrd, M., & Swanson, J. M. (1987). Patterns of memory of the psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments loss in three elderly samples. Psychology & Aging, 2, 79–86. doi: and future directions. United Kingdom: Wiley. 10.1037/0882-7974.2.1.79 Holliday, R. E., Douglas, K., & Hayes, B. K. (1999). Children’s eyewitness Dodson, C., S., & Kruger, L. E. (2006). I misremember it well: Why older suggestibility: Memory trace strength revisited. Cognitive Development, adults are unreliable eyewitnesses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 14, 443–462. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(99)00014-3 770–775. Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2000). Dissociating automatic and Dornburg, C. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). The cognitive interview intentional processes in children’s eyewitness memory. Journal of Ex- enhances long-term free recall of older adults. Psychology & Aging, 21, perimental Child Psychology, 75, 1–42. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2521 196–200. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.196 Holliday, R. E., Reyna, V. F., & Hayes, B. K. (2002). Memory processes Ferguson, S. A., Hashtroudi, S., & Johnson, M. K. (1992). Age differences underlying misinformation effects in child witnesses. Developmental in using source-relevant cues. Psychology & Aging, 7, 443–452. doi: Review, 22, 37–77. doi:10.1006/drev.2001.0534 10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.443 Howard, D., & Patterson, K. E. (1992). The pyramid and palm trees test. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques United Kingdom: Pearson. for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitor- Charles C. Thomas. ing. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 Flexser, A., & Tulving, E. (1978). Retrieval independence in recognition Karpel, M. E., Hoyer, W. J., & Toglia, M. P. (2001). Accuracy and and recall. Psychological Review, 85, 153–171. doi:10.1037/0033- qualities of real and suggested memories: Nonspecific age differences. 295X.85.3.153 Journals of Gerontology Series B - Psychological Sciences and Social Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental Sciences, 56, 103–110. State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for Köhnken, G. (1993). The structured interview: A step-by-step introduction. the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198. doi: Unpublished manuscript. 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 Koustaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition of Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Wright, D. B. (2006). Memory conformity: pictures in older and younger adults. Journal of Memory and Language, Disentangling the steps towards influence during a discussion. Psycho- 37, 555–58. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2529 nomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 480–485. Lampinen, J. M., & Smith, V. L. (1995). The incredible (and sometimes Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., & Wright, D. (2004). Say it to my face: incredulous) child witness: Child eyewitnesses’ sensitivity to source Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal credibility cues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 621–627. doi: and Criminological Psychology, 9, 215–227. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.621 Gardner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1991). Forgetting in recognition memory La Tourette, T. R., & Meeks, S. (2000). Perceptions of patronizing speech with and without recollective experience. Memory & Cognition, 19, by older women in nursing homes and the community: Impact of 17–23. cognitive ability and place of residence. Journal of Language and Social Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Cohen, G., Holland, H., & Surtes, L. Psychology, 19, 463–473. doi:10.1177/0261927X00019004004 (1986). Eyewitness responses to leading and misleading questions under Lindsay, D. S. (2008). Source monitoring. In H. L. Roediger (Ed.), Cog- the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, nitive psychology of memory (pp. 325–348). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 14, 31–39. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility Hashtroudi, S., Johnson, M. K., & Chrosniak, L. D. (1989). Aging and effect and memory for source. Memory & Cognition, 17, 349–358. REDUCING MISINFORMATION IN OLDER ADULTS 1201

List, J. A. (1986). Age and schematic differences in the reliability of older adults: Live event participation and repeated interview. Applied eyewitness testimony. Developmental Psychology, 22, 50–57. doi: Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1109–1127. doi:10.1002/acp.1078 10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.50 Multhaup, K. S., De Leonardis, D. M., & Johnson, M. K. (1999). Source Loftus, E., Miller, D., & Burns, H. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal memory and eyewitness suggestibility in older adults. Journal of Gen- information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: eral Psychology, 126, 74–84. doi:10.1080/00221309909595352 Human Learning & Memory, 4, 19–31. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19 Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2000). Adult age differences in memory perfor- Loftus, E. F., Donders, K., Hoffman, H. G., & Schooler, J. W. (1989). mance: Tests of an associate deficit hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held. Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1170–1187. doi: Memory & Cognition, 17, 607–616. 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1170 Loftus, E. F., Levidow, B., & Duensing, S. (1992). Who remember best? Nyberg, L., Baeckman, L., Erngrund, K., Olofsson, U., & Nilsson, L. G. Individual differences in memory for events that occurred in a science (1996). Age differences in episodic memory, semantic memory and museum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 93–107. doi:10.1002/ priming: Relationships to demographic, intellectual and biological fac- acp.2350060202 tors. Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Luo, L., & Craik, F. I. M. (2008). Aging and memory: A cognitive Sciences, 51B, 234–240. approach. La Review Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 53, 348–353. Odegard, T. N., Cooper, C. M., Holliday, R. E., & Ceci, S. J. (2010). Marche, T. A. (1999). Memory strength affects reporting of misinforma- Interviewing child victims: Advances in the scientific understanding of tion. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 45–71. doi: child eyewitness memory. In J. M. Lampinen & K. Sexton-Radek (Eds.), 10.1006/jecp.1998.2489 Protecting children from violence: Evidence based interventions (pp. Marche, T. A., Jordan, J. J., & Owre, K. P. (2002). Younger adults can 105–127). New York: Psychology Press. be more suggestible than older adults: The influence of learning Park, D. C., & Hedden, T. (2001). Working memory and aging. In M. differences on misinformation reporting. Canadian Journal on Ag- Naveh-Benjamin, M. Moscovitch, & H. L. Roediger (Eds.), Perspectives ing, 21, 85–93. on human memory and cognitive aging: Essays in honor of Fergus Craik McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1985). Misleading postevent infor- (pp. 148–160). New York: Psychology Press. mation and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against mem- Payne, D. G., Toglia, M. P., & Anastasi, J. S. (1994). Recognition perfor- ory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen- mance level and the magnitude of the misinformation effect in eyewit- eral, 114, 1–16. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.114.1.1 ness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 376–382 McIntyre, J. S., & Craik, F. I. (1987). Age differences for item and source Perfect, T. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Moore, D., Andrews, B., Cleveland, V., information. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 175–192. doi: Newcombe, S., . . . Brown, L. (2008). How can we help witnesses to 10.1037/h0084154 remember more? It’s an (eyes) open and shut case. Law and Human McMahon, M. (2000). The effect of the Enhanced Cognitive Interview on Behavior, 32, 314–324. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9109-5 recall and confidence in elderly adults. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply 7, 9–32. doi:10.1080/13218710009524968 awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and mem- Mello, E. W., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). Enhancing older adult eyewitness ory. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. memory with the Cognitive Interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 45–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 10, 403–417. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199610)10:5Ͻ403::AID- Reyna, V. F., Holliday, R. E., & Marche, T. (2002). Explaining the ACP395Ͼ3.0.CO;2-X development of false memories. Developmental Review, 22, 436–489. Memon, A., Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2004). The aging eyewitness. In J. R. doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00003-5 Adler (Ed.). Forensic psychology, current concepts and debates. Willan Reysen, M. B. (2007). The effect of social pressure on false memories. Publishing: Portland, OR. Memory & Cognition, 35, 59–65. Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (in press). The cognitive Roediger, H. L., & Geraci, L. (2007). Aging and the misinformation effect: interview: A meta-analytic analysis and study space analysis of the past A neuropsychological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy & Law. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33, 321–334. doi:10.1037/0278- Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (1996). Interviewing witnesses: What works 7393.33.2.321 and what doesn’t? PSYCOLOQUY, 7, witness-memory.1.memon. Salthouse, T. A. (1985). A theory of cognitive aging. Amsterdam: North- Memon, A., Wark, L., Bull, R., & Kohnken, G. (1997). Isolating the effects Holland. of the cognitive interview techniques. British Journal of Psychology, 88, Schacter, D. L., Kaszniak, A. W., Kihlstrom, J. F., & Valdiserri, M. (1991). 179–197. The relation between source memory and aging. Psychology & Aging, 6, Memon, A., Wark, L., Holley, A., Bull, R., & Köhnken, G. (1997). 559–568. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.6.4.559 Eyewitness performance in Cognitive and Structured interviews. Mem- Searcy, J., Bartlett, J. C., Memon, A., & Swanson, K. (2001). Aging and ory, 5, 639–656. doi:10.1080/741941481 line-up performance at long retention intervals: Effects of metamemory Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2003). Does the cognitive interview help children to and context reinstatement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 207–214. resist the effects of suggestive questioning? Legal & Criminological doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.207 Psychology, 8, 21–38. doi:10.1348/135532503762871219 Skinner, E. I., & Fernandes, M. A. (2009). Age-related changes in the use Mitchell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Source monitoring 15 years later: of study context to increase recollection. Aging, Neuropsychology, and What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of Cognition, 16, 377–400. source memory? Psychological Bulletin, 135, 638–677. doi:10.1037/ Stein, L. M., & Memon, A. (2006). Testing the efficacy of the cognitive a0015849 interview in a developing country. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., & Mather, M. (2003). Source monitoring 597–605. doi:10.1002/acp.1211 and suggestibility to misinformation: Adult age-related differences. Ap- Tulving, E. (1974). Cue dependent forgetting. American Scientist, 62, plied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 107–119. doi:10.1002/acp.857 74–82. Morton, J., Hammersley, R. H., & Bekerian, D. A. (1985). Headed records: Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and the A model for memory and its failures. Cognition, 20, 1–23. doi:10.1016/ retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352– 0010-0277(85)90002-2 373. doi:10.1037/h0020071 Mueller-Johnson, K., & Ceci, S. J. (2004). Memory and suggestibility in Wegesin, D. J., Jacobs, D. M., Zubin, N. R., Ventura, P. R., & Stern, Y. 1202 HOLLIDAY ET AL.

(2000). Source memory and encoding strategy in normal aging. Journal Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2007a). Enhancing the recall of young, of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 455–464. doi: young-old and old-old adults with the cognitive interview and a modi- 10.1076/1380-3395(200008)22:4;1-0;FT455 fied version of the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Whitlatch, C. J., Feinberg, L. F., & Tucke, S. T. (2005). Accuracy and 21, 19–43. doi:10.1002/acp.1260 consistency of responses from persons with cognitive impairment. De- Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2007b). Interviewing cognitively im- mentia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, 4, paired older adults: How useful is a cognitive interview? Memory, 15, 171–183. 17–33. doi:10.1080/09658210601047351 Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2003). Interviewing elderly witnesses Wright, D. B., & Klumpp, A. (2004). Collaborative inhibition is due to the and victims. Forensic Update. United Kingdom: British Psychological product, not the process, of recalling in groups. Psychonomic Bulletin & Society. Review, 11, 1080–1083. Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2005). Police perceptions of older Yarmey, A. D., & Kent, J. (1980). Eyewitness identification by elderly and eyewitnesses. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 10, 211–223. doi: young adults. Law and Human Behaviour, 4, 359–371. doi:10.1007/ 10.1348/135532505X37001 BF01040627

Appendix

Interview Protocols

Modified Cognitive Interview Structured Interview 1. Rapport building phase Rules of interview rules of interview 2. Free recall phase Report everything Context reinstatement Recall request recall request Change order Recall request remember more? 3. Questioning phase Information provided in FR Information provided in FR used as the basis of open-ended used as the basis of open-ended and specific questions and specific questions Form image, probe image 4. Closure Yes/no Recognition memory test question for each postevent narrative Postevent narrative Version 1 There are two people at the cash machine. The woman is wearing a jacket with a hood. The man is shorter than the woman. A third man waits in line carrying something. There is a red sign above the cash machine with 50% off on it. There are four bins nearby. The grey-haired woman opens her brown handbag and puts the money in her purse. Another woman is wearing a jacket. The grey-haired woman bumped into a trolley. There are cars parked on each side of the trolley park. A silver Mini passes in front of the grey-haired woman. There is snow on the ground. The grey-haired woman crosses a busy road. As she walks beside a fence she meets a man. The man is tall and is wearing a woolly hat. After the man takes her bag, the grey-haired woman drops something. She rang her friend for help. Yes/no recognition memory test questions for this narrative version 1. Did the grey-haired woman wear a purple jacket? (Control 1) 2. Was the man at the cash machine shorter than the grey-haired woman? (Misled 1) 3. Was there a third man waiting in line holding plastic carrier bags? (Control 2) 4. Did the red sign above the cash machine say 50% off? (Misled 2)? 5. Did the grey-haired woman have a brown handbag? (Misled 3) 6. Was there another woman shopper wearing a blue jacket? (Control 3) 7. Did the grey-haired woman bump into a trolley? (Misled 4) 8. Were there three cars parked on either side of the trolley park? (Control 4) 9. Did a silver Mini pass in front of the grey-haired woman? (Misled 5) 10. Did the grey-haired woman walk beside a brown fence? (Control 5) 11. Did the robber wear a woolly hat? (Misled 6) 12. Did the grey-haired woman drop her glove? (Control 6)

(Appendix continues) REDUCING MISINFORMATION IN OLDER ADULTS 1203

Appendix (continued)

Postevent narrative Version 2 There were two people at the cash machine. The woman was wearing a pink jacket with a hood. There was a man at the other cash machine. A third man waited in line carrying a backpack. There was a red sign above the cash machine. There were four bins nearby. The grey-haired woman opened her handbag and put the money in her purse. Another woman was wearing a red jacket. The grey-haired woman walked on. There were four cars parked on each side of the trolley park. A silver car passed in front of the grey-haired woman. There was snow on the ground. The grey-haired woman crossed a busy road. As she walked beside a green fence she met a man. The man was wearing warm clothes. After the man took her bag, the grey-haired woman dropped her keys. She rang her friend for help. Yes/no recognition memory test questions for this narrative version 1. Did the grey-haired woman wear a pink jacket? (Misled 1) 2. Was the man at the cash machine taller than the grey-haired woman? (Control 1) 3. Was there a third man waiting in line carrying a backpack? (Misled 2) 4. Did the red sign above the cash machine say “half price”? (Control 2)? 5. Did the grey-haired woman have a black handbag? (Control 3) 6. Was there another woman shopper wearing a red jacket? (Misled 3) 7. Did the grey-haired woman walk past a trolley? (Control 4) 8. Were there 4 cars parked on either side of the trolley park? (Misled 4) 9. Did a silver estate car pass in front of the grey-haired woman? (Control 5) 10. Did the grey-haired woman walk beside a green fence? (Misled 5) 11. Was the robber man tall? (Control 6) 12. Did the grey-haired woman drop her keys? (Misled 6) Control questions are those for which no misinformation was given and reflect the information that was present in the original film. In the postevent narrative, only generic information was presented for these details. Misled questions are those for which misinformation that contradicts information presented in the original film and was presented in the postevent narrative.

Received January 19, 2010 Revision received August 6, 2010 Accepted August 20, 2010 Ⅲ