Henkel, L. A., Franklin, N., & Johnson, M. K. (2000).  Cross-modal source monitoring confusions between perceived and imagined events.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 321-335.

Rae Tuckey, M., & Brewer, N.  (2003).  The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 101-118.

Wright, D. B., Mathews, S. A., & Skagerberg, E.M.  (2005).  Social recognition memory: The effect of other people's responses for previously seen and unseen items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 200-209.

    Wright, Mathews and Skagerberg wanted to test how people influence others memories.  They held three experiments.  The first experiment tested the memory of people who were presented with high-frequency words, low-frequency words and non words with twenty words in each group.  They then recalled their memory by themselves and then put into pairs with a confederate and were asked to respond to the stimulus.  For the second experimental study, they were shown one-hundred pictures of cars and rated them on a scale from 1 (being average) and a 7(being most unique).  The same procedure in the first experiment was used for the second one.  The model used to interpret the data was based on the Multilevel Logistic Regression Model and the signal detection theory.  They also used ANOVA to interpret their data.  The participants were more likely to rely and conform to the responses of the confederates for unseen items as compared to seen ones.  The third experiment was shown pictures of white male faces to set the stimulus as homogeneous.  This group were not paired with confederates and responded to the stimuli individually.  They were asked which faces they had already seen and which ones they do not remember.  They used the same techniques to interpret the data.  On average, the three experiments concluded that the participant’s responses were influenced by the confederate for both new and old items.  This demonstrates that that a person can be easily affected by a false memory of a nonexistent event than to report a memory of an actual one.

            This article is interesting because it shows how easily people’s memories can be manipulated and influenced to become false.  It also demonstrates how easy it is for people who are unsure of seeing something to conform to another’s view and accept it as their own.  This is particularly important in eyewitness reports and their validity and reliability.  The article gives the example of the Oklahoma City Bombing and the witness of Timothy McVeigh purchasing a vehicle.  The owner did not remember him but a mechanic remembered him and falsely remembered an accomplice with him, soon everyone in the shop reported to have a memory of both of the men.  In reality he was by himself.  This can also hold true for eyewitness testimony for crimes.  Why is eyewitness testimony relied on so heavily, when we are aware that people’s memories are easily manipulated?  I think this study should allow us to reevaluate the importance of eyewitness testimony in court cases and convictions.