Who Said What? The Effects of Cognitive Load on Source Monitoring and Memory for Multiple witnesses' Accounts.

Pamela Hanway, Lucy Akehurst, Zarah Vernham, Lorraine Hope
Author Information
  1. Pamela Hanway: School of Psychology, Sport and Health Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth UK. ORCID
  2. Lucy Akehurst: School of Psychology, Sport and Health Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth UK.
  3. Zarah Vernham: School of Psychology, Sport and Health Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth UK.
  4. Lorraine Hope: School of Psychology, Sport and Health Sciences University of Portsmouth Portsmouth UK.

Abstract

Investigative interviewers are often required to accurately remember information that has been provided by different people. This can be at the scene of an event or during follow-up investigations in interview rooms. Interviewers must accurately monitor the source of information to differentiate between witnesses' accounts and to assess what information is novel and what has been corroborated by others or by physical evidence. The current research examined the effects of cognitive load on memory and source monitoring accuracy for information provided by multiple witnesses. Participants, under conditions of high cognitive load (HCL) where load was induced via interviewer-relevant tasks (e.g., formulating questions) or no cognitive load (NCL), watched five mock-witnesses' accounts of the same crime. Each witness provided several details of the crime that were unique to their individual account. When asked about account details, and which witness had provided each detail, mock-interviewers' memory accuracy was lower in the HCL condition than the NCL condition. There was no difference between cognitive load conditions for source monitoring accuracy, which was poor regardless of condition.

Keywords

References

  1. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60 [PMID: 19897823]
  2. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Apr 17;7:140 [PMID: 23616756]
  3. Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):85-93 [PMID: 20078759]
  4. Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):3-28 [PMID: 8346328]
  5. Scand J Psychol. 2015 Feb;56(1):28-37 [PMID: 25382708]
  6. Law Hum Behav. 2000 Dec;24(6):699-708 [PMID: 11105480]
  7. Mem Cognit. 2019 Oct;47(7):1359-1374 [PMID: 31119498]
  8. Br J Surg. 2018 Apr;105(5):491-501 [PMID: 29465749]
  9. J Exp Child Psychol. 1991 Dec;52(3):297-318 [PMID: 1770330]
  10. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Nov;47(11):1870-1887 [PMID: 34398626]
  11. Memory. 2002 Mar;10(2):83-98 [PMID: 11798439]
  12. J Neurosci. 2012 May 23;32(21):7253-7 [PMID: 22623670]
  13. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Mar;9(1):139-45 [PMID: 12026946]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0loadcognitiveinformationprovidedsourcememorymonitoringaccuracywitnessconditionaccuratelywitnesses'accountsconditionsHCLNCLcrimedetailsaccountInvestigativeinterviewersoftenrequiredrememberdifferentpeoplecansceneeventfollow-upinvestigationsinterviewroomsInterviewersmustmonitordifferentiateassessnovelcorroboratedothersphysicalevidencecurrentresearchexaminedeffectsmultiplewitnessesParticipantshighinducedviainterviewer-relevanttasksegformulatingquestionswatchedfivemock-witnesses'severaluniqueindividualaskeddetailmock-interviewers'lowerdifferencepoorregardlessSaidWhat?EffectsCognitiveLoadSourceMonitoringMemoryMultipleAccountsinvestigativeinterviewingworking

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.