바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
 

logo

메뉴

시간 지연과 오정보 제시 상황에서 초기 자기기입식 면담(SAI)이 정확 회상과 기억 보호에 미치는 영향

Effects of Self-Administered Interview on Correct Recall and Memory Protection in the Situation of Delay and Misinformation

초록

수사 장면에서 피해자 및 목격자들은 사건 목격 이후 다양한 오정보에 노출될 뿐만 아니라 장기간의 시간 지연 후 진술할 가능성이 높다. 본 연구는 정확 회상을 저해할 수 있는 시간 지연 및 오정보의 영향을 감소시키고 정확 회상 보고량을 증진시키는 방안을 고안하기 위해 진행되었다. 따라서 목격자 진술을 빠르고 정확하게 확보하는데 도움이 된다고 알려진 자기 기입식 면담(Self-Administered Interview, SAI)을 수행한 집단이 SAI를 수행하지 않은 통제 집단보다 정보를 더 많이 보고하는지, 또 SAI를 통해 오정보 및 시간 지연의 영향을 받지 않고 정확 정보가 유지되는지 알아보고자 하였다. 88명의 20대 성인을 대상으로 범죄를 재연한 영상을 보여준 후 SAI나 통제 과제(게임)를 수행하도록 하였으며, 오정보를 목격 당일(1회기), 혹은 4주 후(2회기)에 제시하여 4주 후 회상량에 영향을 주는지 검증했다. 그 결과 SAI를 실시한 집단이 통제 집단보다 4주의 지연 이후 실시된 2회기의 검사에서 정확 정보를 더 많이 보고하였으며, 부정확 정보 및 작화 정보 보고량에는 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 오정보의 제시 시점은 회상량에 영향을 주지 않았다. 이러한 결과는 사건을 목격한 직후 SAI를 실시하는 것이 장기간의 시간 지연에서 기억 정보를 보호할 수 있음을 시사한다. 마지막으로 연구의 의의 및 제한점, 그리고 후속 연구를 위한 제언을 논의하였다.

keywords
시험 효과 자기 기입식 면담(Self-Administered Interview SAI) 시간 지연 오정보 기억 보호 testing effect Self-Administered Interview(SAI) time delay misinformation memory protection

Abstract

Witnesses will be exposed to a variety of misinformation after the witnessing of the event and state at the scene of the investigation after the delay period. This study was conducted to promote correct recall reporting without being affected by factors that against correct recall. Self-Administered Interview(SAI) is known to obtain eyewitness accounts quickly and accurately. Therefore, we performed a SAI to see if it reported more information than the control group that did not perform the SAI. Also, it also performed that correct information was maintained without being affected by misinformation and delay. Eighty-eight participants were asked to perform SAI or game after showing a video of mock crime. Misinformation was presented in the first or second session to see if it affected recall. An analysis of responses from the final test conducted in the second session by participants showed that groups that conducted SAI after a four-week delay reported more correct information than control groups, while there was no difference between incorrect- and confabulation information. In particular, the timing of presenting misinformation did not affect the amount of recall. This suggests that conducting the SAI immediately after witnessing the event protects correct information even after four weeks. Finally, the significance and limitations of this study, and subsequent studies were discussed.

keywords
시험 효과 자기 기입식 면담(Self-Administered Interview SAI) 시간 지연 오정보 기억 보호 testing effect Self-Administered Interview(SAI) time delay misinformation memory protection

참고문헌

1.

김미영, 김경하, 전우병, & 김시업. (2004). 인지면담기법이 아동과 성인의 사건회상 정확성에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 18(2), 137-151.

2.

김미영, & 김시업. (2016). SAI (Self-Administered Interview) 가 사건회상 정확성에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 30(3), 63-75.

3.

김시업, & 문옥영. (2010). 단축형 인지면담이 노인목격자의 회상에 미치는 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 24(4), 95-112.

4.

유상우, 김영신, 노주선, 오강섭, 김찬형, 남궁기, & 김세주. (2006). 한국판 Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 타당도 연구. 대한불안의학회지, 2(1), 50-55.

5.

한유화, & 박광배. (2015). 기억에 대한 오정보의 영향: 숨긴정보검사를 이용한 원기억의 탐지. 감성과학, 18(2), 85-100.

6.

Anderson, M. C., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). Retrieval-induced forgetting: Evidence for a recall-specific mechanism. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7(3), 522-530.

7.

Brackmann, N., Otgaar, H., Sauerland, M., & Howe, M. L. (2016). The impact of testing on the formation of children’s and adults’ false memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 785-794.

8.

Brewer, G. A., Marsh, R. L., Meeks, J. T., Clark-Foos, A., & Hicks, J. L. (2010). The effects of free recall testing on subsequent source memory. Memory, 18(4), 385-393.

9.

Buckley, M. E., & Neumann, E. (2018). Retrieval induced forgetting and enhancement in tertiary law examinations: Are Law Students Unique. Psychology & Psychological Research International Journal, 3, 1-15.

10.

Butler, B. J., & Loftus, E. F. (2018). Discrepancy detection in the retrieval-enhanced suggestibility paradigm. Memory, 26(4), 483- 492.

11.

Chan, J. C., & Langley, M. M. (2011). Paradoxical effects of testing: Retrieval enhances both accurate recall and suggestibility in eyewitnesses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 248-255.

12.

Chan, J. C., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2011). The dark side of testing memory: Repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 418-432.

13.

Chan, J. C., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2013). Impairing existing declarative memory in humans by disrupting reconsolidation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(23), 9309-9313. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218472110

14.

Chan, J. C., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility: The reversed testing effect. Psychological science, 20(1), 66-73.

15.

Chan, J. C., Wilford, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2012). Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity. Journal of memory and language, 67(1), 78-85.

16.

Congleton, A., & Rajaram, S. (2012). The origin of the interaction between learning method and delay in the testing effect: The roles of processing and conceptual retrieval organization. Memory & cognition, 40(4), 528- 539.

17.

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and human behavior, 28(6), 687-706.

18.

Dodd, D. H., & Bradshaw, J. M. (1980). Leading questions and memory: Pragmatic constraints. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(6), 695-704.

19.

Fioravanti, M., & Di Cesare, F. (1992). Forgetting curves in long-term memory: evidence for a multistage model of retention. Brain and cognition, 18(2), 116-124.

20.

Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R., & Jamieson, K. (2008). Preserving memory accuracy over a delay with the use of a self-administered interview. Law and Human Behavior, 33(4), 298-307.

21.

Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool. Law and human behavior, 33(4), 298-307.

22.

Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting against misleading post‐event information with a self‐administered interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 568-575.

23.

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., & Wright, D. B. (2004). Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and criminological psychology, 9(2), 215-227.

24.

Gawrylowicz, J., Memon, A., & Scoboria, A. (2014). Equipping witnesses with transferable skills: the Self-Administered Interview©. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(4), 315-325.

25.

Gawrylowicz, J., Memon, A., Scoboria, A., Hope, L., & Gabbert, F. (2014). Enhancing older adults’ eyewitness memory for present and future events with the Self-Administered Interview. Psychology and aging, 29(4), 885-890.

26.

Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissian, I. V., & Prosk, A. L. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 12(1), 74-80.

27.

Gilliland, A. R. (1948). The rate of forgetting. Journal of educational psychology, 39(1), 19-26.

28.

Han, Y. (2017). The misinformation effect and the type of misinformation: objects and the temporal structure of an episode. American journal of psychology, 130(4), 467-476.

29.

Hjelmsäter, E. R., Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). The Self-Administered Interview: a means of improving children’s eyewitness performance? Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(10), 897-911.

30.

Hope, L., Gabbert, F., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). From laboratory to the street: Capturing witness memory using the Self‐Administered Interview. Legal and criminological psychology, 16(2), 211-226.

31.

Hope, L., Gabbert, F., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2014). Protecting and enhancing eyewitness memory: The impact of an initial recall attempt on performance in an investigative interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 304-313.

32.

Houston, K. A., Clifford, B. R., Phillips, L. H., & Memon, A. (2013). The emotional eyewitness: The effects of emotion on specific aspects of eyewitness recall and recognition performance. Emotion, 13(1), 118-128.

33.

Huff, M. J., Davis, S. D., & Meade, M. L. (2013). The effects of initial testing on false recall and false recognition in the social contagion of memory paradigm. Memory & cognition, 41(6), 820-831.

34.

Huff, M. J., Weinsheimer, C. C., & Bodner, G. E. (2016). Reducing the misinformation effect through initial testing: Take two tests and recall me in the morning? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 61-69.

35.

Krix, A. C., Sauerland, M., Raymaekers, L. H., Memon, A., Quaedflieg, C. W., & Smeets, T. (2016). Eyewitness evidence obtained with the Self‐Administered Interview© is unaffected by stress. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 103-112.

36.

LaPaglia, J. A., & Chan, J. C. (2019). Telling a good story: The effects of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility. PloS one, 14(2), e0212592.

37.

LaPaglia, J. A., Wilford, M. M., Rivard, J. R., Chan, J. C., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Misleading suggestions can alter later memory reports even following a cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 1-9.

38.

MacLean, C. L., Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2019). The Self-Administered Witness Interview Tool (SAW-IT): Enhancing witness recall of workplace incidents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1212-1223. doi:10.1002/acp.3568

39.

McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological methods, 1(1), 30.

40.

Paterson, H. M., Eijkemans, H., & Kemp, R. I. (2015). Investigating the impact of delayed administration on the efficacy of the Self- Administered Interview. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(2), 307-317.

41.

Paulo, R. M., Albuquerque, P. B., & Bull, R. (2016). Improving the enhanced cognitive interview with a new interview strategy: Category clustering recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 775-784.

42.

Pfeil, K. (2018). The Effectiveness of the Self-Administered Interview©-A Meta-Analytic Review and Empirical Study with Older Adult Witnesses. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).

43.

Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., & Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 233-239.

44.

Saunders, J., & MacLeod, M. D. (2002). New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 127-142. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.127

45.

Shaw, J. S., Bjork, R. A., & Handal, A. (1995). Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness- memory paradigm. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2(2), 249-253.

46.

Takarangi, M. K., Parker, S., & Garry, M. (2006). Modernising the misinformation effect: The development of a new stimulus set. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 583-590.

47.

Vornik, L., Sharman, S., & Garry, M. (2003). The power of the spoken word: Sociolinguistic cues influence the misinformation effect. Memory, 11(1), 101-109.

48.

Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Szpunar, K. K. (2011). Testing protects against proactive interference in face-name learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 18(3), 518-523.

49.

Wilford, M. M., Chan, J. C., & Tuhn, S. J. (2014). Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(1), 81-93.

50.

Wise, R. A., Fishman, C. S., & Safer, M. A. (2009). How to analyze the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case. Connecticut Law Review, 42, 435-513.

logo