People will be more susceptible to post-event information if it is encountered socially. 
Their hypothesis is grounded in the notions that:
- Individuals are more likely to trust information that is shared through conversation due to the availability of social cues like eye contact and facial expressions
- People want to conform to the ideas of others to appear more likable.

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., & Wright, D.B. (2004/2010). Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(2), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428

Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation

Individuals were found to be more susceptible to misremembering an event when they encountered misleading post-event information from a social source than when they encountered misleading post-event information from a non-social source. 

Socially vs. Non-Socially Encountered Misinformation

Individuals often misremembered an event if they received false post-event information about it, but the participants were most likely to misremember the event if they received the errant post-event information in a social context.


Although older adults were not found to be any more susceptible to misremembering an event after being exposed to errant post-event information from a social source, both groups showed improved memory of the event in general when given the opportunity to discuss it with another person, and the older adults particularly benefited from this social interaction.


Say it to my face: Key Findings 

Say it to my face: Study Hypothesis

This study sought to investigate whether errant post-event information encountered during a face-to-face discussion results in a greater misinformation effect than when misinformation is encountered non-socially (reading a post-event narrative). 
This study also investigates age differences in susceptibility to post-event information presented both socially and non-socially. To examine age differences, the study uses two random samples: one of undergraduate students and one of older adults.

Say it to my face: Study Objective

- n = 210 
- 108 undergraduate students from the University of Aberdeen (17-33 years)
- 102 older adults recruited from local community (58-80 years)

Older adults were first given a Memory Impairment Screen to test for the possibility of Alzheimer’s.


Event: a simulated robbery at a Blockbuster (2 robbers, 1 employee, 1 customer) 
Recall Measures: 20 question questionnaire given to each participant before and after manipulation phase

Biased-confederate group: participants completed the experiment with a confederate whom they believed to be another participant (confederates trained to act as naive participant) 

Participants watched a short video followed by 10 minutes of filler tasks
Participants were given 20 question questionnaire (asked not to guess on questions) followed by 20 minutes of filler tasks 
Manipulation phase: instructed that they had a short amount of time to discuss the video events together as a pair - confederate was trained to disclose 4 items of misinformation

Biased-narrative group: same procedure as biased-confederate group but instead of discussion with a confederate during the manipulation phase, participants were asked to read a written story embedded with 4 items of misinformation


Learn Before

Related