User talk:Ahein21/sandbox

Memory conformity improvement summary

First I would add real life examples to the first paragraph. I think this would help to provide the reader with an enhanced understanding of memory conformity.

Next, I would improve the second paragraph by providing a better definition of the dyad group, the read group and the video group. Also, it is very confusing to try to understand the actions taken by each group.

Lastly, I think providing examples of the test results would assist in understanding what the author is trying to convey. (Ahein21 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Memory Conformity

Memory conformity refers to when people share information after a certain event, their memories become more similar to each others' than if they had not had this social interaction (Wright, Self & Justice, 2000). As an example, recent research (e.g., Gabbert, Memon, & Allen, 2003) has shown that people who have social interaction after a certain event is more likely to have their thoughts persuaded into something other than what they actually witnessed. In Gabbert, Memon, and Allen's experiment, 60% of their participants reported findings that they couldn't have possibly witnessed. This is part of research focusing on social influences on memory.

Discussing a memory can often lead to negative results. When discussing a memory with someone else, the story starts to become combined and the original story is now a mixture of two stories. For example there was a study on siblings and 75% of siblings have different memories of their childhood. For example growing up one may remember going on a family vacation to the beach and enjoyed it, while the other sibling hated the vacation and has bad memories about the vacation. Years later after discussing why they did or did not like the vacation their stories have been combined what they actually remembered may just be what the other sibling has told them.

A recent study in 2009 reevaluates the potency or strength of the memory conformity effect by having two groups of individuals in two Experiments. Half of the participants viewed the same video from a different camera angle. By having different camera angles two critical details could not be seen in one of the versions. Everyone was lead to believe they saw the same video. Participants were paired in dyad groups, one of which saw the video with the two critical details and one who did not. Some of the participants learned the details by discussion while filling out a questionnaire collaboratively, known as the dyad group. 71 percent of the questionnaires reported at least one of the critical non-witnessed details. Questionnaires that were not filled out collaboratively never reported non-witnessed details. Another group, called the read group, read a report written by the dyad group. The third group, called the both video group, saw both versions of the video.

In the first Experiment, these participants often reported non-witnessed details about the event. However, on a source-judgment test, where the details were from the actual source, rather than the video, the dyad group was not any more likely than the read or both-video groups to report non-witnessed details.

In the second Experiment, participants were discouraged from using the details that were remembered from the secondary source only. What did all of this prove? That post warning instructions substantially reduced the memory conformity effect, and the first group (dyad group) was not more likely than a read group to report witnessed details. By encouraging the read group, source monitoring at test can reduce the negative consequences of co-witness collaboration. (Ahein21 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)) (