Citation

Pickel KL. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1999; 13(5): 399-413.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199910)13:5<399::AID-ACP603>3.0.CO;2-3

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This study identifies cues that differentiate perceptually based from suggested eyewitness memories and investigates whether misled witnesses deliberately invent false descriptions of suggested objects. Witnesses to a staged event either viewed a target object (Visible condition), did not see the object but had its presence suggested to them (Suggestion condition), or did not see the object but falsified a description (Deception condition). Compared to Suggestion witnesses, Visible witnesses who provided a description used more sensory details, used fewer verbal hedges and 'I' pronouns, rated their confidence higher, spoke more slowly, and maintained less eye contact with the interviewer. Obtained differences between Suggestion and Deception witnesses imply that misled witnesses do not intentionally fabricate descriptions. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Language: en