| 1. |
- Allwood, Carl Martin, 1952, et al.
(author)
-
Child witnesses meta-memory realism
- 2006
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. - 0036-5564 .- 1467-9450. ; 47, s. 461-470
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 2. |
- Allwood, Carl Martin, 1952, et al.
(author)
-
Child witnesses’ metamemory realism
- 2006
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0036-5564 .- 1467-9450. ; 47, s. 461-470
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study investigated the degree of realism in the confidence judgments of 11-12 year old children (N=81) of their answers to questions relating to a short film clip showing a kidnapping event. Four different confidence scales were used: a numeric scale, a picture scale, a line scale, and a written scale. The results demonstrated that the children showed a high level of overconfidence in their memories. However, no significant differences between the four confidence scales were found. The results indicate that, at least in the context investigated, 11-12 year-old children’s confidence in their event memory show poor realism. A comparison with previous research on adults indicates that children show noticeably poorer realism.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Allwood, Carl Martin, 1952, et al.
(author)
-
The effects of source and type of feedback on child witnesses' metamemory accuracy
- 2005
-
In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0888-4080 .- 1099-0720. ; 19:3, s. 331-344
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study investigated the effect of feedback on the accuracy (realism) of 12-year-old children's metacognitive judgments of their answers to questions about a film clip. Two types of judgments were investigated: confidence judgments (on each question) and frequency judgments (i.e. estimates of overall accuracy). The source of feedback, whether it was presented as provided by a teacher or a peer child, did not influence metacognitive accuracy. Four types of feedback were given depending on whether the participant's answer was correct and depending on whether the feedback confirmed or disconfirmed the child's answer. The children showed large overconfidence when they received confirmatory feedback but much less so when they received disconfirmatory feedback. The children gave frequency judgments implying that they had more correct answers than they actually had. No main gender differences were found for any of the measures. The results indicate a high degree of malleability in children's metacognitive judgments.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Granhag, Pär-Anders, 1964, et al.
(author)
-
The Cognitive Interview and its effect on witnesses' confidence
- 2004
-
In: Psychology, Crime & Law. - : Informa UK Limited. ; 10:1, s. 37-52
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Today there is ample evidence that the Cognitive Interview (CI) enhances witnesses' memory. However, less is known about how the CI affects eyewitnesses' confidence. To address this shortcoming we conducted a study analyzing how realism in confidence was affected by the CI. All participants were first shown a filmed kidnapping. After 2 weeks we interviewed one-third of the participants according to the guidelines of the CI, one-third according to a Standard Interview (SI), and one-third were not interviewed at all (Control condition). Participants in all three conditions were then asked to answer 45 forced-choice questions, and to give a confidence judgment after each choice. For the questions, no differences in accuracy were found between the three conditions. Confidence was higher in the CI and SI conditions, compared with the Control condition. CI and SI did not differ in meta-cognitive realism but both showed lower realism compared with the Control condition, although only CI significantly so. The results indicate that the inflation in confidence is more likely to be explained in terms of a reiteration effect, than as a consequence of the particular mnemonics characterizing the CI (e.g. "mental reinstatement of context"). In sum, CI does not seem to impair (or improve) the realism in witnesses' confidence, and does not inflate confidence in erroneous recall, compared to a SI.
|
|
