User:Kjimenez44/sandbox
Underlying mechanisms[edit]
Three influences can contribute to memory conformity and social contagion errors: normative influences, information influences and source monitoring errors. Normative and informational influences on memory are both social influences that can lead to memory conformity.
Social influences[edit]
Normative influence, first suggested in the 1955 Asch conformity experiments, states that in social situations, people are more likely to make statements that they do not believe, in order to conform to social norms and to gain social acceptance. For example, research has shown that people who have social interactions after an event are more likely to change their thoughts about the event to something other than what they actually witnessed. In one experiment, 60% of participants reported findings that they could not possibly have witnessed.
Information influence describes a kind of conformity in which people tend to report what someone else has stated previously because they depend on the other person to resolve uncertainty. People are more likely to conform, if they believe that their information source had more time to learn the materials, or had better visual acuity, or expressed high confidence in their judgment. One study found that those considered to be high-power individuals are more likely to influence those deemed to be low-power. High-power people are more likely to express themselves and lead discussions, while lower-power individuals will tend to follow and depend upon the more confident individual.
Source monitoring[edit]
Main article: Source-monitoring error
Source monitoring is the conscious effort one makes to determine the source from which a memory or piece of information came. These sources tend to be one's own experience with others and the world, or their own imagination and dreams. Specific and vivid details within each of these helps determine which of the possibilities is the most probable source. For one’s outer experience, these details usually involve the setting and events that occurred around that time. These are then contrasted with other events that have occurred in the past to judge what the source could have been. Personal, concrete experiences are often more vivid and have more detail than imagined experiences. [1] Noticing the difference between details and vivid details can help to determine whether a piece of information came from experience or the imagination.
Source monitoring has a relationship with the frontal lobe of the brain, which is the region of the brain that uses judgment to make decisions. The hippocampal region of the brain, involved with memory, is highly used when retrieving information from external events.[2] After having recalled a memory or piece of information with the help of the hippocampus, the brain uses its judgment abilities within the prefrontal cortex to determine whether it was received by a specific source or another.[3]
Source monitoring errors is another mechanism underlying memory conformity. A source-monitoring error can lead to an incorrect internal attribution of a memory (the belief that a memory was made from first-hand experience), when in reality that information had an external source (someone else relayed the information). When a piece of information or a memory of an event has similar qualities to that of another, it is possible that the information is confused and stored incorrectly. There are not enough differences to permit a strong enough distinction between the two. This can lead to false attributions when working in relation to sources. For example, when two men were speaking in a previous situation, it may be more difficult to recall which of them presented a specific piece of information when compared to one man and one woman speaking. [4]
Suggestion and opinions of others can highly affect whether an error in memory or source attribution occurs. Social interactions can increase source-monitoring errors, with law studies showing that participants attributed their memory to an incorrect source about 50% of the time. Real-life events have provided examples in which errors in source monitoring have occurred, especially in relation to criminal cases or terrorist events. To show this, a study was done with an Israeli plane crashing in Amsterdam. After being asked where each person had received the news of the event, many falsely reported their source of the information. Most claimed to have seen it on the television, although the event had not been filmed. It is likely that through descriptions of the event and stories, the brain created the event visually, causing the person to think it was seen on television. .[5]
Source credibility involves the judgment of a source's believability based on various characteristics, such as the level of expertise and the trustworthiness of what has been presented. A piece of information may appear to be reliable based on how the source that is providing it is analyzed. This source can have its credibility confirmed through objective means. It can also be perceived to be credible based on various aspects the source, such as age, gender, status, and more.[6] Studies have shown that when misinformation is presented by sources perceived to be less credible (e.g., older adults or children), it is less likely to be incorporated into memory. The decision of whether to trust information or not is often based on criteria such as an author’s reputation, status, authority and the information’s plausibility. Through opinions and media, some of these criteria tend to be manipulated and presented information often can be misunderstood. .[6]
 | This is a user sandbox of Kjimenez44. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
- ^ Lampinen, James; Beike, Denise (2015). Memory 101. Springer Publishing Company, LLC. pp. 79–81.
- ^ Brambilla, Paolo; Mauri, Massimo Carlo; Altamura, Alfredo Carlo (2018). Hallucinations in Psychoses and Affective Disorders: A Clinical and Biological Approach. Springer. p. 135. ISBN 3319751247.
- ^ Brainerd, Charles; Reyna, Valerie (2005). The Science of False Memory. Oxford University Press. pp. 69–70. ISBN 0195154053.
- ^ Birren, James; Schaie, K Warner; Abeles, Ronald; Gatz, Margaret; Salthouse, Timothy (2001). Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. Gulf Professional Publishing. p. 356. ISBN 0124114695.
- ^ Kapardis, Andreas (2009). Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 1139484893.
- ^ a b Hilligoss, Brian; Rieh, Soo Young (2008). Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. MIT Press. p. 8. ISBN 0262062739.