Factors that Influence Source Monitoring Do not Necessarily Influence False Childhood Memories

Abstract

In the early 1990s, memory researchers first demonstrated how adults could come to remember childhood experiences that never occurred (Loftus, 1993; Loftus & Pickrell, 1995). Since then, several studies have shown the relative ease with which false childhood memories can be implanted into adults. These studies, along with the general false memory literature, have been used to develop a four-stage explanation of how false childhood memories develop. According to the four-stage model, subjects must [1] accept that the suggested event is plausible, [2] believe that the event really occurred, [3] create contextual information for the event, and [4] commit a source monitoring error: Subjects must wrongly attribute their memory construction to personal experience rather than to an image that they have created. A review of the literature shows that the first three components of the four-stage model-plausibility, belief, and memory construction-have been the focus of attention and have received much empirical support. However, the final component-source monitoring error-has received little attention. Specifically, research has not investigated whether factors that influence source monitoring-one's ability to distinguish between genuine and imagined experiences-also influence the development of false autobiographical memories. Thus, this thesis examined whether three factors known to affect source monitoring-familiarity, consistency, and consensus-affect the construction of false autobiographical memories. Study 1 investigated whether doctored photographs, like false narratives, could elicit false autobiographical memories. If so, photos and narratives could be combined to examine whether source monitoring factors influenced the likelihood of false childhood memories. Over three interviews, subjects worked at remembering three real plus one doctored childhood photograph. The results showed that doctored photographs could be used to implant false autobiographical memories. Study 1 provided the basis for Studies 2-4. The studies investigated whether familiarity, consistency, and consensus influenced the construction of false childhood memories. Each study followed the same basic procedure as Study 1 and included one manipulation that would vary the amount of familiarity (Study 2), consistency (Study 3) or consensus (Study 4) subjects experienced. In Study 2, familiarity was manipulated by exposing subjects to either a false narrative or a doctored photo. In Study 3, consistency was manipulated by exposing subjects to both false narratives and doctored photographs and manipulating the order in which subjects viewed the mediums. In Study 4, consensus was manipulated by exposing subjects to false narratives and doctored photographs that contained either consistent or contradictory details. Taken together, the results from Studies 2-4 suggested that some factors that influence source monitoring also influence false childhood memories, while other factors appear to be unrelated to false memory production. Specifically, familiarity affected the creation of false childhood memories, whereas consistency and consensus did not. These results have theoretical implications for the four-stage model of memory construction, studying false memory phenomena, and the contemporary view that memory is constructive. Furthermore, these results have practical implications for those involved in clinical and legal settings.