title: Speaking order predicts memory conformity after accounting for exposure to misinformation.
abstract: When people discuss their experiences, they can later report seeing things that they never saw, simply because they heard about those things in the discussion. One factor that may contribute to this effect is the order in which people speak; some research has investigated this issue, but it remains unclear whether a relationship exists between memory conformity and speaking order. We explored this question using data from five previous memory conformity experiments. The results provide evidence of an association between speaking order and memory conformity, such that people who spoke first in a discussion were misled less often than people who did not. These results build on previous research by demonstrating that the association could not have been caused by differences in opportunities to be misled. We could not draw conclusions about causality from the exploratory analyses, but ruled out several simple explanations of the results, and considered a variety of social and cognitive mechanisms that might account for the association. Further investigation will be required to tease apart the possible mechanisms that underlie the relationship between speaking order and memory conformity.
authors: Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. lauren.hewitt@curtin.edu.au
authors: Lauren Y
authors: LY
authors: Hewitt
authors: Robert
authors: R
authors: Kane
authors: Maryanne
authors: M
authors: Garry
mesh_terms: D003142:Communication; D006801:Humans; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D012931:Social Environment; D013060:Speech; D013997:Time Factors
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Aug;18(4):805-12
references: 21484508
references: Mem Cognit. 2012 Feb;40(2):280-6
references: 21918910
references: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Nov;35(4):599-604
references: 14748504
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):480-5
references: 17048734
references: J Abnorm Psychol. 1959 Jul;59(1):1-9
references: 13664403
references: Mem Cognit. 2002 Oct;30(7):995-1009
references: 12507365
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Feb;127(2):476-84
references: 17937922
references: Mem Cognit. 2001 Apr;29(3):394-404
references: 11407416
references: J Abnorm Psychol. 1959 Mar;58(2):203-10
references: 13640824
references: Mem Cognit. 2012 Jan;40(1):101-12
references: 21773846
references: Memory. 2012;20(3):254-65
references: 22364195
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Jan;136(1):119-28
references: 21112042
references: Law Hum Behav. 2005 Dec;29(6):705-22
references: 16382357
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):1010
references: 18087975
references: Int J Psychol. 2010 Oct 1;45(5):390-7
references: 22044061
references: J Abnorm Psychol. 1955 Nov;51(3):629-36
references: 13286010
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:591-621
references: 14744228
references: Br J Psychol. 2000 May;91 ( Pt 2):189-202
references: 10832514
references: Memory. 2008 Apr;16(3):262-73
references: 18324551