Do Format Differences in the Presentation of Information Affect Susceptibility to Memory Distortions? The Three-Stage Misinformation Procedure Reconsidered

Joanna Ulatowska , Justyna Olszewska , Matthew D Hanson


To date most studies within the misinformation paradigm have used the visual presentation of a to-be-remembered event that is later tested verbally or visually. However, the well-established encoding specificity hypothesis predicts that congruence between encoding and test phases should lead to fewer memory errors. In Study 1, we examined the susceptibility to misinformation after encoding original information in 1 of 4 different formats: as a film, slides, and as a written or auditory narrative. All participants were tested verbally, and those who encoded original information pictorially (as a video or slides) were more likely to incorrectly accept verbally suggested information. This might be a consequence of encoding–retrieval format match. In Study 2, using either verbal or pictorial modality during encoding, postevent information, and test (fully crossed design), we partially supported the encoding–retrieval format match hypothesis; however, auditory presentation of original or postevent information modified the effect, showing that a memory trace created after auditory description was the strongest.
Author Joanna Ulatowska
Joanna Ulatowska,,
, Justyna Olszewska (Wydział Psychologii)
Justyna Olszewska,,
- Wydział Psychologii
, Matthew D Hanson
Matthew D Hanson,,
Journal seriesAmerican Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0002-9556, (A 20 pkt)
Issue year2016
Publication size in sheets0.5
Keywords in Englishmisinformation effect, format of information, encoding modality, encoding– retrieval match
ASJC Classification1201 Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous); 3204 Developmental and Educational Psychology; 3205 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Languageen angielski
amercian journal (1).pdf 255.42 KB
Additional file
Oswiadczenie_JOlszewska.docx 29.33 KB
Score (nominal)25
Publication indicators Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2016 = 0.548; WoS Impact Factor: 2016 = 0.629 (2) - 2016=0.749 (5)
Citation count*
Share Share

Get link to the record

* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Are you sure?