False Memory Implanting Laney et al.

Memory can be distorted by other information both during encoding and after event

Psychology being investigated

False details about real events can be added to person’s memory stprage system
People can “reconstruct” meomories by “filling in the gaps and using false information that gets
embedded in actual information

Aim

In experiment 1
To investigate whether positive false memories for loving asparagus can be implanted into people and
then change their childhood memories of liking asparagus

In experiment 2
To investigate the consequences of implanting positive false memories in terms of the effects it has on
liking asparagus and choosing asparagus

Experiment 1

Sampling
128 undegraduates at the university of California, Irvine
Received course credit
Female(77%)+Male(23%)
Mean age:20.8 (SD=5.1)
They were run in groups of up to 8

Variables
IV: subjects were randomly assigned to
“Love” group (n=63)
control group (n=65)
DV: Rating in 5 questionnaires to show Ps’ memory implanting
Comparison on critical items in session 1 and 2

Materials: 5 scales
 Aim of scale number of items Rating range Example or Special Design
Critical items

FHI (Food History To measure Ps’ 24 1=definitely did “Loved /

Inventory) food experience not asparagus the
before age 10 8=definitely first time you
tried it” in the
16th position

RQ （Restaurant to assesse their 32 道菜 1=definitely did sauteed formatted to look like a

questionnaire) desire to eat of not asparagus spears menu with 5 categories.
32 seperate 8=definitely yes asked to imagine that they
dishes in a were out for a special dinner
restaurant setting and then decide how likely
they were to order each
item on the menu regardless
of price

FPQ （Food To measure 62 separate food 1=definitely did asparagus

preference individual not like to eat (for
questionnaire) preference of whatever
certain food reasons)
8=definitely like
to eat

FCQ (Food cost To indicate the 21 different food for asparagus: a pound of 7 different price choices
questionnaire) most Ps would be would never buy asparagus
willing to pay for it,$1.90,$2.50,
each 21 different $3.20, $3.80,
food items at a $4.40, $5.00,
grocery store by %5.70
circling a price

MBQ (Memory of by indicating respond to 3 Memories (or asparagus instructed to give as many
Belief) whether itmes from the “remember” detailed reasons as possible
1) they had a FHI judgments) are
specific memory specific
of the event structured units
2) had a belief that may be quite
that the even t detailed
had occurred(but Beliefs (or
lacked specific “know”
meomory) judgement) are
3) were positive less specific and
that the event less tied to time
had not occurred and place

design

Method: Laboratory experiment +self report

Design: independent measure design

Sampling: Volunteer

Procedure

Session 1
 Arrive at lab in groups up to 8
told the fake aim “relationship between food preferences and personality”
Deception- to limit demand characteristics
All Ps werer treated identically
° Finished FHI & RQ +completed 3 fille
° Personality Measure + Social desirability scale+ Eating Habits Assessment

Session 2 ( 1 week later)

Ps randomly split to love or control group + given false food profiles by computer about their early
childhood experiences with food
All had
“As a young child you disliked spinach”
“you enjoyed fried foods"
you felt happy when a classmate bought sweeys yo school”
For love group
“You loved to eat cooked asparagus” in 3rd position
For control group
Feedback only had 3 fillers questionnaires; nothing about apragus
To ensure all Ps processed feedback, they needed to respond to brief Qs about statement
Love group were asked about asparagus additionally
Imagine setting in which experience happened
where were you? who was with you?
Scale 1 (not at all)-9 (very much): Rate what extend did this experience affect your adult
personality?
Then FHI & RQ for second time ( compare pre and post result)
FPQ &FCQ (additional postmanipulation measure)
Memory of belief? Questionnaire
When all materials was completed, Ps were debriefed and excused ( each day’s procedure=1/2 h
for subjects-to avoid?)

Result

Result 1: FHI

Love group : 17(love apragus)+46

Control group : 14(love apragus)+51
After the manipulation, love group became more confident that they had loved asparagus the first time
they tried it as a child
Exluded : Ps who were sure that they had loved asparagus the first time tried it before the manipulation
(rate>5 in critical group)
 In total 97
Ps-Love group: rating increases 2.6 point
control grooup: rating increases 0.2 point

Result 2: MBQ

Love group:

Meomory Belief No Total number

Love group 22% n=10 35% n=16 43% n=20 46 (这个数据是已

经去掉了第⼀次就
喜欢芦笋的 Ps）

Control group 12% n=6 28% n=14 61% n=31 51

There are more Ps indicated a memory than control group did

This was in the predicted direction but it did not reach significance (P=0.09)

Result 3: Believers Vs. Non-believers

Believers: who were susceptible to the manipulation
Given low rating to the critical FHI item at Session1 +increased rating at session 2 (e..g.
from 2-4)
Given a “memory” or “belief” response on MBQ
Non-believers: who were failed to meet both critical in love group
FHI score:
In Love group
Belivers: 48% (n=22) of low-starting Ps
2 male+20 female
The ratings of FHI from 22 believers increased average 4.5 points from session 1 to 2
Non-believers : FHI ratings increases just 0.9 points
MBQ performance:
For 22 believers
10 claimed memory- FHI items rating average increases 5.5 points
12 claimed belief- FHI items rating average increases 3.6 on average

Result 4: consequence of False beliefs (comparision between believers and control

group)
On the RQ, believers reported more desire to eat the ccritical asparagus item at session 2 than
controls, P=0.001
FPQ
Believers’ mean rating=6.14 (SD=2.12)
 Control group mean rating=3.84 (SD=2.69)
Believers reported liking asparagus significantly more than the control group (P=0.001)
FCQ
14 Ps in control group said they would never buy asparagus, while none of the believers
selected that response
Believers were willing to pay significantly more for asparagus than were those in the control
group, P=0.02

Experiment 2

Sampling:
103 undergraduateds at university of Washington
received course credit
Female (62%)+male (38%)
Mean age: 19.9 (SD=2.9)
IV: Love group (n=58) & control group (n=45)
Procedure
Session 1
Arrive at lab in groups up to 8
Told the their data would be entered into a computer that would generate a profile based on their
answers
No cover story was given (no fake aim told)
All Ps werer treated identically
Finished FHI & RQ & FPQ + Completed 2 filler questionnaires to disguise true purpose of the
experiment
Personality Measure + Social Desirabilitu Scale
Session 2 ( 1 week later)
Ps randomly split to love group+given false food profiles (by computer) about their early childhood
experiences with food
For love group: “you loved asparagus the first time you ate it” in the 3rd position
For control group: nothing about asparagus
Instructed to answer questions about their memory for this event (or to inmagine what might have
happened if they lacked a specific memory)
age at the time of evernt
the location of the event
what they were doing at the time
who was with them
how it made them feel
 All subjects then completed an additional exercise: “ what is the most important childhood,
food -related event in your life that your food profile did not report? Please explain in the space
below”
Viewed a series of 20 slides with photographs of common food (e.g. strawberries, pizza,
asparagus, etc.)
each slide displayed for 30s
Ps should rate the food according to:
how appetizing the food depicted in the photo
how disgusting
whether the photo was taken by a novice, amateur, or expert photographer
the artistic quality of the photo’
Qs 1, 2,&8 were rated on a scale from 1= not at all to 8= very much
then FHI &RQ&FPQ for second time (compare pre and post result)
memory of belief? Questionnaire
When all materials was completed, Ps were debrieded and excused

Result

Result 1: FHI
Love group: 18+40, rating increase 2.5 point(1.7-4.2)
Control group: 12+33, rating increase 1.1 point (1.45-2.52)
Exclided: Ps who were sure that they had loved asparagus the first time tried it before the
manipulation (rate>5 in critical item)

After the manipulation, love group cecame more confident that they had loved asparagus the first time
they tried it as a child

Result 2: MBQ
Love group: 28% Memory+ 28% belief+ 45% no(n=11+11+18)
Control group: 12+38+56 (n=6+12+18)
The confidence of the 10 believers with a “memory” of the critical event increased significantly
more (5.4 point) than did that of the 10 believers witha “belief” (3.5 points)
Result 3: Believers Vs. Non-believers

Same criteria:
Belivers: who were susceptible to the manipulation
given low rating to the critical FHI item at session1 +increased rating at Session2 (e.g. from2-4)
given a “memory” or “belief” response on MBQ
53% (n=21) of low-starting Ps
The ratings of confidence from 21 believers increaed from session 1 (1.95 mean, 1.12 SD) to
Session 2 (6.48 mean, 2.02SD)
Non- believers: who were failed to meet both criteria in love group
 The ratings of confidence increases from session 1 (1.42 mean, 0.9 SD) to Session2(1.68 mean,
0.07SD)
Result 4: Consequence of False beliefs ( comparison between believers and control group)
On the FPQ, believers reported more desire to eat the critical asparagus item at session 2 than id
controls, p=0.02
On the RQ, neither believers’ nor controls’ ratings changed significantly from pre-to
postmanipulation
Believers rated the asparagus photo as more appetizing than did controls (5.10 versus 4.00), and
as less disgusting (1.81 versus 3.24)
Believers and controls did not rate the pictures differently on the dimensions of expertise (p= .22)
or artistic quality (p = .72)

Conclusion

Participants can be given positive false food beliefs that have consequences which leads the vary sight
of asparagus more appealing to participants