{"id":1729,"date":"2014-11-23T16:40:19","date_gmt":"2014-11-23T21:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/?p=1729"},"modified":"2017-09-06T13:38:05","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T17:38:05","slug":"reversed-testing-effect-why-rehearsal-practive-could-be-bad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2014\/11\/23\/reversed-testing-effect-why-rehearsal-practive-could-be-bad\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Recalling Always Good?–The Possible Dangers of Recalling"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"memory_misconception_survey\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The act of recalling–we do it so casually and frequently without much thought; whether it\u2019s recalling questions from an exam when you are discussing with friends questions you couldn\u2019t figure out, or subconsciously remembering what the acquaintance was like while hearing rumors about him\/her. Recalling might not be all so good–at least not as much as we might think it is. We don\u2019t usually question the accuracy of the information we take in. However, it turns out to be that the accuracy of information becomes important, especially<\/i> after the act of recalling (retrieving any information from memory). Through recalling an event, we enhance our ability to take in new information relevant to the event; if the new information is an accurate account of the event, our accuracy on the memory of the event is enhanced, but if the information is misleading or wrong, we take in the misleading information into our memory as well as we do of an accurate event. In the case of discussing an exam question with a friend, if the friend gives you inaccurate information, your possibly accurate prior memory could be \u201coverwritten\u201d with the wrong information your friend just provided. And in the case of hearing a rumor about an acquaintance, you could have a positive memory about the person before, but because of the rumor, which might be right or wrong, your memory could paint a new picture of him\/her over the positive image that you used to have. Without being aware, we are making ourselves susceptible to taking in misinformation through just a simple act of recall. This could become very problematic at times; especially in eyewitness testimonies where their account makes a huge impact on what could be decided in court.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

There are many problems with the eyewitness testimony. Many psychologists have revealed numerous things that could go wrong when a witness gives an account on an event. Some of these things are: cross-racial identification difficulties, weapon focus (and less attention paid to the details of the criminal), distortion of memory caused suggestion (i.e., suggestibility) and misremembering the source of information (i.e., misattribution).\u00a0\u201cThe Faulty Eyewitness\u201d blog post<\/a> provides a more detailed description on some of these factors that could lead to an inaccurate eyewitness account. A study by Chan et al. shows that act of recalling the event before possibly being provided with misinformation adds to the above problems (Chan et al., 2009).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"(White<\/a>

(White & Case, 2012)<\/p><\/div>\n

Chan et al. conducted an experiment to test if the act of recalling would enhance the accurate retention of a witnessed event. Suggestibility was one of the major problems of the eyewitness testimony. This occurs when, for example, a policeman asks you questions such as \u201cdid you see the man with the<\/i> gun?,\u201d where it is implied that the man had the gun, when in reality, there may not have even been any gun in the scene. The eyewitness could be suggested into believing, and even changing the memory of the event in a way that he\/she would remember the man holding the gun. The psychologists initially went in with the idea that retrieving information enhances memory. Many previous studies have shown the power of testing effects; the finding that long-term memory is strengthened when retrieving remembered information (Roediger and Pyc, 2012). And hence, Chan et al. wanted to test if recalling the event before such suggestions would allow for an eyewitness to become resistant to misinformation.<\/p>\n

Chan et al. set up an experiment where they asked 36 young participants to watch an episode of a television program (the witnessed event), take a test on details about the video (recalling event), make them listen to an audio narrative describing the video (containing some misinformation) and finally, recall the information in the video again (Chan et al., 2009). Participants in the controlled condition were asked to do almost the same series of tasks, except the first test on the details of the event.<\/p>\n

The experiment results contradicted their hypothesis. The results, to their surprise, showed that recalling prior to presentation of misinformation in fact, made eyewitnesses\u00a0more<\/i> susceptible to remembering the misinformation than making them resistant at all. They called this the \u201creversed testing effect.\u201d Chan et al. proposed two possible explanations for this finding. One was that prior testing enhanced learning of new information (which they called, the insulation effect). The participants learned misinformation better when they were tested, than when not being tested. Another explanation they gave was that reconsolidation of the \u201cactivated\u201d memory needed to take place. Presentation of misinformation during the reconsolidation process allowed them to encode the misinformation better.<\/p>\n

This discovery reveals that in reality, eyewitnesses are more susceptible to remembering inaccurate information more than we may have thought (from previous eyewitness testimony studies). It is more likely that an eyewitness recalls the event once or a few times in preparation to answer questions from the officers; in which they are likely to be exposed to some kind of suggestibility (like in the above example: \u201cdid you see the man holding the<\/i> gun?\u201d). The \u201creversed testing effect\u201d could be another major fault that contributes to inaccuracy of the eyewitness testimony.<\/p>\n

\"(Learning<\/a><\/p>\n

The beneficial effects of retrieval practice for our memory are well studied and well announced to the public. However, not many people are aware of the other side of the coin–the potential \u201cdangers\u201d that recalling could cause if we are not aware of the accuracy of information around us. The study by Chan et al. is important in that it makes us aware of side of recalling that we were not aware of–the potential \u201cdangers\u201d that it could cause if we are not aware of the accuracy of information around us. It teaches us that activating a particular memory could make it easier for it to become altered according to the new information presented. Since the brain is as equally as capable of \u201cover-writing\u201d the correct, previous memory with wrong and misleading information as it is with correct information, we need to be careful not to immerse ourselves in an environment that provides misleading information.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Links to blogs on related topics:<\/p>\n

Testing Effect<\/a><\/p>\n

Faulty Eyewitness Testimonies<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

REFERENCE<\/p>\n

Chan, Jason C.k., Ayanna K. Thomas, and John B. Bulevich. “Recalling a Witnessed Event Increases Eyewitness Suggestibility: The Reversed Testing Effect.”\u00a0Psychological Science\u00a020.1 (2009): 66-73.<\/p>\n

Roediger, Henry L., and Mary A. Pyc. “Applying Cognitive Psychology to Education: Complexities and Prospects.”\u00a0Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition\u00a01.4 (2012): 263-65.<\/p>\n

Schwartz, Rachel. “At the Innocence Network.”\u00a0Innocence Network. Innocence Network Inc., 2012. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. http:\/\/www.innocencenetwork.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Zaragoza, Maria S., and Sean M. Lane. “Source Misattributions and the Suggestibility of Eyewitness Memory.”\u00a0Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\u00a020.4 (1994): 934-45.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The act of recalling–we do it so casually and frequently without much thought; whether it\u2019s recalling questions from an exam when you are discussing with friends questions you couldn\u2019t figure out, or subconsciously remembering what the acquaintance was like while hearing rumors about him\/her. Recalling might not be all so good–at least not as much […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5925,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[80215],"tags":[130349,130400,212],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1729"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5925"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1729"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1729\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3814,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1729\/revisions\/3814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}