Premium
Eyewitness Errors in the Free Recall of Actions
Author(s) -
Sanders Glenn S.,
Chiu Warren
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01204.x
Subject(s) - confabulation (neural networks) , recall , psychology , eyewitness testimony , set (abstract data type) , action (physics) , cognitive psychology , quality (philosophy) , memory errors , free recall , social psychology , computer science , cognition , epistemology , neuroscience , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics , programming language
Although eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, its quality is not uniformly poor. Previous research indicates that the most accurate type of testimony involves the unstructured recall of actions. The present study replicates the finding that confabulation, particularly the complete fabrication of nonexistent actions, is rare. Our results also extend earlier work by revealing that the few errors that did occur were spread evenly across subjects—with most subjects making 0 or 1 error and with no subjects making more than 3 errors. Furthermore, action memory errors form a heterogeneous set—there were few commonly recurring or predictable errors. Our attempts to increase error frequency by the use of suggestive implications and rapid action sequences were unsuccessful. Practical aspects of evaluating action memory testimony are discussed, with special reference to cases involving multiple eyewitnesses.