The Bizarreness Effect and Memory: Implications for Eyewitness Testimony
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Bizarreness Effect and Memory: Implications for Eyewitness Testimony by Jennifer Wiseman A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Wilkes Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a Concentration in Psychology Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Jupiter, Florida May 2008 The Bizarreness Effect and Memory: Implications for Eyewitness Testimony by Jennifer Wiseman This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Julie L. Earles, and has been approved by the members of her/his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ____________________________ Dr. Julie L. Earles ____________________________ Dr. William O’Brien ______________________________ Dean, Wilkes Honors College ____________ Date ii ABSTRACT Author: Jennifer Wiseman Title: The bizarreness effect and memory: Implications for eyewitness testimony Institution: Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. Julie L. Earles Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences Concentration: Psychology Year: 2008 Mistakes in combining components of stimuli are called binding or memory conjunction errors. They occur when people mistakenly associate two previously seen stimulus features that were not previously seen together. It is hypothesized that bizarre items will be better remembered than common items. Participants saw 18 continuous events, each containing four actions performed by four different actors. One week later they returned for a recognition test and were shown more video clips. There were old, new action, and conjunction items. A conjunction item was composed of a familiar actor performing a familiar action that had previously been performed by someone else. For each clip, participants were asked if they saw this person perform this action before. Participants responded ―yes‖ to conjunction same context items more often than they did to conjunction different context items. iii To all of my friends, who helped me so much Table of Contents 1. List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….v 2. The Bizarreness Effect and Memory: Implications for Eyewitness Testimony………………………………………………………………………..1 a. Introduction………………………………………………………………1 b. Overview of Experiment………………………………………………17 3. Method………………………………………………………………………….18 a. Participants…………………………………………………………….18 b. Procedure……………………………………………………………...19 i. Stimuli generation and filming……………………………….19 ii. Encoding……………………………………………………….22 iii. Retrieval………………………………………………………..23 4. Results………………………………………………………………………….24 a. Yes responses…………………………………………………………24 i. Yes responses to non-bizarre items…………………………24 ii. Yes responses to bizarre items………………………………25 b. Confidence data…………………………………………………….....25 i. Non-bizarre items……………………………………………...26 ii. Bizarre items…………………………………………………...26 5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………...27 a. Yes responses…………………………………………………………27 i. Non-bizarre items………………………………………..........27 ii. Bizarre items…………………………………………………...29 b. Confidence data……………………………………………………….31 i. Non-bizarre items……………………………………………...31 ii. Bizarre items…………………………………………………...32 6. Conclusions……………………………………………………………............32 iv 7. Tables 1-5…………………………………………………………………..34-38 8. Figure captions…………………………………………………………………39 9. Figures 1-4…………………………………………………………………40-43 10. Appendices A-B…………………………………………………………...44-45 11. References……………………………………………………………………..46 v List of Tables 1. Participant Characteristics 2. Proportion Of Yes Responses By Item Type—Non-Bizarre Items 3. Proportion Of Yes Responses By Item Type—Bizarre Items 4. Average Confidence Ratings By Item Type—Non-Bizarre Items 5. Average Confidence Ratings By Item Type—Bizarre Items vi The Bizarreness Effect and Memory: Implications for Eyewitness Testimony Introduction Every day we make attributions and associations between features to produce whole objects. We see the color green and a tree full of leaves and later remember this as green leaves. This is an example of binding. This process, creating associations among different stimulus features to represent the relationship among them (Kersten, Earles, Curtayne, & Lane, in press), is generally thought to be automatic. For the most part, we tend to make the correct associations between features, but mistakes do occur. So what causes us to make these errors? To understand this, we first must define the errors themselves. A binding error, or memory conjunction error, is the result of a person misidentifying a stimulus as ―old‖ because he or she has seen the stimulus parts previously, but not in the current combination (Reinitz, Verfaellie, & Milberg, 1996). These two mistakenly associated features are then believed to belong together (Kersten et al., in press), and the person believes that he or she has seen the newly combined stimulus before (Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001). In other words, the global structure of the stimulus parts is not remembered, either because of selectively forgetting or simply failing to encode it (Reinitz et al., 1996). By referring to the ―global structure‖ we mean the original combination of two stimulus parts, the ―whole‖. It is easy to see that correctly combining features 1 is important. You would not want to take a second dose of a medication because you did not remember that you had already taken it. So if this association is so very important, why do binding errors occur? Several authors have proposed that these binding errors occur as a result of miscombination of features during retrieval (Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001). Others believe that there is a lack of explicit recollection in the face of familiarity (Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001; Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Earles, Kersten, Curtayne, & Perle, submitted), divided, or lack of attention (Treisman & Schmidt, 1982; Jones & Jacoby, 2001 ; Prinzmetal, Presti, & Posner,1986; Reinitz, Morrissey, & Demb, 1994), unconscious transference (Read, Tollestrup, Hammersley, McFadzen, & Christensen,1990; Ross, Ceci, Dunning, & Toglia, 1994; Earles et al., submitted),or source monitoring (Henkel, Johnson, & De Leonardis,1998; Ross et al.,1994). One implication of the idea that features are miscombined is that the parts must be encoded or stored separately in order for any miscombination to occur. There are several studies that show evidence for this (Prinzmetal et al., 1986). These features can include several different things, such as simple and descriptive features like color, size, shape, texture, etc, or they can be more complex, such as actor and action. The systems that process these features are also thought to be independent of each other (Treisman & Schmidt, 1982) and are often described as separate feature maps that encode the separate features, meaning that one would need some sort of bridge between the maps to correctly 2 re-associate the features (Kersten et al., in press). This scenario implies that there is a deficit in memory when conjunction errors are made. It is also possible that, when encoding a stimulus, one simply fails to encode the association between features, or that the association between the features is forgotten more quickly than the features themselves. It is also possible that the separate features are bound together in the encoding process using an incorrect association and are then remembered in that form (Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001). This process is seen when memory conjunction errors occur in recall, or when a person is asked to later recognize a stimulus as old or new (Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001). In non-laboratory settings, an example of this occurs when a person ―mixes their metaphors‖. They express part of one metaphor and part of another as if they were part of the whole, and generally believe that association to be correct. These possibilities are supported by the proximity effects found by Reinitz and Hannigan (2001). When the distance between two stimuli is the basis for conjunction errors, this is called a proximity effect. In other words, the closer two stimuli are to one another in presentation, the more conjunction errors will be made concerning those two stimuli. When a stimulus was presented to a participant at the same time as at least one other stimulus, the number of conjunction errors increased. Basically, when presented with stimuli at the same time, it rendered the within-pair conjunction stimuli (a blending of the two faces 3 that had been presented together at encoding) much less discernable than other stimuli (Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001). Reinitz et al. (1992) propose that the information concerning the association between stimulus features are stored in episodic memory and the features themselves in another memory center, one that is separate and dissociable from the association itself. An extreme real-life example of binding errors is amnesia. It has been proposed that the basic deficit in amnesia is the formation of new associations between features or elements of memory that already exist in memory (Johnson et al., 1993). The binding in this case is believed to be a function of the hippocampal system (Reinitz et al., 1996). According to this belief, amnesiacs should not be able to discriminate between old and conjunction stimuli. To test this notion, Reinitz et al., (1996) tested amnesic and normal participants and found that amnesiacs had an impaired