title: Monitoring the source monitoring.
abstract: The hypothesis that the retrieval of correct source memory cues, those leading to a correct source attribution, increases confidence, whereas the retrieval of incorrect source memory cues, those leading to a source misattribution, decreases confidence was tested. Four predictions were derived from this hypothesis: (1) confidence should be higher for correct than incorrect source attribution except; (2) when no source cues are retrieved; (3) only the source misattributions inferred from the retrieval of incorrect source cues will be rated with low confidence; and (4) the number of source cues retrieved, either correct or incorrect, will affect the confidence in the source attributions. To test these predictions, participants read two narratives from two witnesses to a bank robbery, a customer and a teller. Then, participants completed a source monitoring test with four alternatives, customer, teller, both, or neither, and rated their confidence in their source attribution. Results supported the first three predictions, but they also suggested that the number of correct source monitoring cues retrieved did not play a role in the monitoring of the accuracy of the source attributions. Attributions made from the recovery of incorrect source cues could be tagged as dubious or uncertain, thus leading to lowered confidence irrespective of the number of incorrect source cues or whether another correct source cue was also recovered. This research has potential applications for eyewitness memory because it shows that confidence can be an indicator of the accuracy of a source attribution.
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal, karlos.luna@psi.uminho.pt.
authors.forename: Karlos
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Luna
authors.forename: Beatriz
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Martín-Luengo
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D011939:Mental Recall / Q000502:physiology; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D011932:Reading; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2007 Jul;35(5):1024-33
references.pmid: 17910186
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2007 Mar;22(1):122-33
references.pmid: 17385989
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 1992 Sep;7(3):443-52
references.pmid: 1388866
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1993 Oct;100(4):609-39
references.pmid: 8255951
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2010 Jun;16(2):204-18
references.pmid: 20565204
references.citation: Cogn Process. 2012 Aug;13(3):243-53
references.pmid: 22476569
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2001 May;56(5):405-16
references.pmid: 11355363
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2012 Jan;119(1):80-113
references.pmid: 22022833
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2007 Sep;12(5):391-411
references.pmid: 17690998
references.citation: Memory. 2010 May;18(4):451-7
references.pmid: 20408040
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):3-28
references.pmid: 8346328
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Dec;117(4):371-6
references.pmid: 2974863
references.citation: Memory. 2006 Feb;14(2):148-60
references.pmid: 16484106
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Feb;139(2):320-6
references.pmid: 22257711
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2007 Nov;12(6):511-36
references.pmid: 17978937
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 1995 Sep;49(3):397-407
references.pmid: 9183984
references.citation: Law Hum Behav. 2009 Jun;33(3):194-212
references.pmid: 18600436
references.citation: Span J Psychol. 2009 Nov;12(2):405-13
references.pmid: 19899643
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Aug;137(3):528-47
references.pmid: 18729714
references.citation: Psychol Med. 2003 Jan;33(1):131-9
references.pmid: 12537044
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011 Jun;17(2):148-58
references.pmid: 21500935
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;23(10):1208-14
references.pmid: 22933457