The Effect of Question Order on Recall Accuracy

Student Number: 16281055

The Effect of Question Order on Recall Accuracy

1


Contents

Abstract 2

Introduction 3

Method 8

Results 10

Discussion 12

References 15

Appendix A1 (Participant Consent Form) 16

Appendix A2 (Participant Information Sheet) 17

Appendix A3 (Participant Answer Sheet Samples) 18

Appendix B (SPSS Outputs) 24

2


Abstract

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effect of question order on recall accuracy.Previous research on working memory by Baddeley (2000) proposed the theory of the “episodic buffer” slave system in working memory was thought to be linked to semantic processing of memories. Research by Bower & Clarke, (1969) found that using a narrative technique, individuals could remember a greater amount of information and with greater accuracy, providing evidence that placing events in a coherent narrative order improves later recall. Research by Craik & Tulving, (1975) provided evidence of shallow and deep processing, information processed at the deep level (in terms of its semantic content and how it linked to other pieces of information) was easier to recall. This research is also based on evidence from Fischer & Geiselman (1990) who found that reverse recall can enhance the accuracy of recalled memories and on research by Geiselman & Callot, (1990) who found that reverse recall following forward recall improved participants recall accuracy.Cognitive interviewing techniques claim that questions can act as contextual prompts to aid recall of events by reinforcing the narrative structure of the event to aid recall of events proceeding and preceding the question.

It was predicted that questions listed in an ordered fashion (chronologically ordered or reverse-chronologically ordered) would provide more accurate recall than questions listed in a mixed/random order.Participants were presented with a single trial during which they watched a short (around five minute) film clip. Participants were given a short break after watching the clip to control for the recency effect and were then provided with an answer sheet and were presented with 20 questions using PowerPoint which were ordered in one of three ways (chronological, reverse-chronological and mixed/random). Participants were given 20 seconds to answer each question; answer sheets were then marked by the researchers.The independent variable was question order and it had three levels (chronological, reverse-chronological and mixed/random), the dependent variable was accuracy (number of questions answered correctly).The experiment found that there was a significant difference between accuracy on mixed and reverse-chronological question order. When an outlier in the chronological condition was controlled for it was found that there was a significant difference between mixed and reverse-chronological question order and between mixed and chronological question order. The hypothesis was accepted and the null hypothesis rejected.

3


Introduction

Memory refers to the process of encoding (putting stimulus information into the relevant form in order to allow the memory system to use it), storing (maintaining information in memory) and retrieval (locating and using information stored in memory).The study of memory is useful as it can be applied to numerous facets of everyday life by providing the ability to enhance teaching techniques, revision techniques and curriculum changes in the sphere of education, eye-witness testimony, suspect interrogation and presentation of evidence in the criminal justice sphere and advertising techniques in the field of marketing.

Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) provide the most cited model of memory, the modal model of memory. In this model memory is divided into three components, sensory memory, short-term memory and long-term memory. Sensory memory refers to information about the physical features of stimuli which are held briefly in memory (two seconds or less) but are fairly accurate representations of the stimulus, in this respect sensory memory is difficult to distinguish from perception. Sensory memory most likely consists of multiple components (one for each sense modality); however, most research is focused on visual and auditory sensory memory.Visual sensory memory is known as “iconic memory” which holds a brief representation of a scene which has just been seen. Sperling (1960) found that information held in iconic memory lasts for a very short time and the ability to recall information from iconic memory is limited due to each item in iconic memory having to be transferred and stored in short-term memory.Auditory sensory memory is known as “echoic memory” and holds information about sounds and tones that have just been heard. Echoic memory is necessary for the comprehension of music and speech as it holds each perceived tone briefly and allows them to be transferred into short-term memory where an analysis can be performed to determine the meaning of the word or the structure of the tune, echoic memory stores information briefly; around four seconds (Darwin, Turvey & Crowder, 1972).

Short-term memory provides one of components of the dual-store memory theory (with the other being long-term memory). Short-term memory has a limited capacity; typically considered to be seven plus or minus two items, Miller (1956), however, Jones (2002) has criticised this figure. Information held in it tends to fade quickly and be difficult or impossible to recall, the process of rehearsing that information in short-term memory allows for it to be transferred to long-term memory for easier recollection. Short-term memory receives information not just from sensory memory, it also receives input from long-term memory, for example when asked to memorise a list of letters from their native tongue in order of their appearance, individuals will recall information about each letter from long-term memory and the order of the letters from iconic memory (the order of the letters is stored in iconic memory, transferred to short-term memory for rehearsal but the names of the letters and their appearance is transferred from long-term memory to short term memory for recall). Neurological evidence for the dual-store model comes from Talmi, Grady, Goshen-Gottstein, Moscovitch (2005) who found, using fMRI, activation of brain regions involved in long-term memory processing when participants recalled words from earlier in a list, this activation was not present when recalling words form later in the list.Forgetting information from short-term memory is mainly due to “displacement”, Waugh & Norman, (1965) found that when probed to recall a number from a list that corresponded to the number that

4


came after the probe number it was not passage of time that caused information to fade from short-term memory but the number of items between the probe and target digit, additional information that entered the limited capacity short-term memory pushed out (“displaced”) other information held in it.

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) proposed an additional component to memory related to short-term memory termed “working memory”. Working memory refers to an aspect of short-term memory wherein information is held and manipulate in short-term memory whilst various tasks are performed using that information.Baddeley’s model of working memory was first formulated by Baddeley & Hitch in 1974, the original 1974 model contained three components (the central executive, the phonological loop and the Visuo-spatial sketchpad), however, this model was revised in 2000 to add a fourth component (the episodic buffer). The central executive controls attention and the flow and co-ordination of information to and from the slave systems. The central executive can store information from any sense modality but is limited in capacity. The Phonological Loop stores auditory information and consists of two parts; the phonological store (which stores auditory input from the ears and long term memory) and the articulatory loop (which is used to rehearse information from the phonological store).The Visuo-spatial sketchpad stores visual and spatial information from the eyes or long term memory and is used in tasks requiring navigation.The Episodic Buffer collates information from the other components of working memory to form whole units of Visuo-spatial, auditory and verbal information in a chronologically ordered sequence (e.g. remembering a movie scene) to prepare it for storage in long-term memory. This component is linked to semantic meaning.

Long-term memory contains information encoded from short-term working memory, one theory regarding how information is transferred from short-term memory to long-term memory was proposed by Hebb (1949). The consolidation hypothesis proposes that rehearsal of information in short-term memory causes neural activity which, if sustained, causes structural changes in the brain which as generally permanent. A problem with this theory is that is ignores implicit learning (where information enters long-term memory without actively entering short-term memory) and it asserts that length of time spent in short-term memory coupled with amount of rehearsal of that information are the primary determinants of how well that information is stored in long-term memory, challenging this second assertion, Craik and Lockhart developed their “levels of processing” model. Craik & Lockhart’s levels-of-processing model was first formulated in 1972. This model postulates that the accuracy of a memory depends on whether it was rehearsed elaboratively or via maintenance and how the information that forms the memory is processed, whether it was processed at the shallow level or the deep level.Maintenance rehearsal is the rote repetition of information i.e. reading the same information over and over again, rehearsing it in short-term memory repeatedly; this maintains the information in short-term memory but does not necessarily cause consolidation of that memory into long-term memory.Elaborative rehearsal, by contrast, is the recollection of information from long-term memory that relates to the new information, rather than simply repeating the information in short-term memory, the information is connected to other pieces of related information stored in long-term memory in terms of its meanings and associations. This method of rehearsal is much more likely to result in

5


information being store in long-term memory.Craik & Tulving (1975) performed an experiment which supported this theory of elaborative and maintenance rehearsal, they asked participants to look at several complex or simple sentences with a word missing, they then flashed up a word briefly and asked participant to press a button corresponding to whether it fitted the sentence or not, after this participant were given a recall task to see how many of the flashed up words they could recall, it was found that participants were twice as likely to recall words that had fitted into the complex sentences rather than the simple sentences, they had linked the word’s associations to the context of the complex sentences by recalling information about the content Shallow processing involves encoding information in its most basic phonemic and orthographic structure (how the information looks and sounds without any deeper semantic component).Deep processing involves encoding the information in terms of its semantic content (what the information means and how it links to other related information at the semantic level).Information processed at the shallow level is much more easily forgotten than information processed at the deep level.

Long-term memory consists of two main categories, memories which are important to the individual (Episodic memory) and memories about the world in general/general knowledge (Semantic memory), this distinction was first formulated by Tulving (1972). Episodic memory refers to memories about an individual’s past experiences and their life story and has cross-cultural support for when such memories develop (Conway, Wang, Hanyu & Haque, 2005).Semantic memory refers to information regarding data, facts and general knowledge and interacts with episodic memory.The theory of two separate memory components in long-term memory has since been revised making episodic memory a part of semantic memory and not a separate system Tulving (1983, 1984), however, neuroimaging studies support the theory that episodic and semantic memory are separate components as they use different brain regions when processing information (Martin and Chao, 2001; Warrington & Shalice, 1984; Martin, Wiggs, Ungerleider & Haxby, 1996 and Chao, Haxby & Martin, 1999).

Context also plays a role in memory and the processing of information to be stored in memory both as a schema to influence memory and memory and as a physical cue.An experiment by Godden & Baddeley (1975) investigated the effects of context on learning in terms of physical cues. In their experiment they had participants’ learn a list of words in two different physical contexts; underwater and on land and then recall the lists underwater or on land. They found that participants who had learnt the list of words underwater had better recall when asked to recall words underwater and those who learnt their lists on land had better recall when recalling the words on land, the external environment acted as a cue for recall.Goodwin, Powell, Bremer, Hoine & Stern (1969) and Overton (1968) found that internal environmental states (the state participants’ physiology was in) also played a role in recall accuracy, in their experiments they found that participants who learnt information whilst in a drugged state could only recall that information when returned to that drugged state, the drugged state acted as a recall cue.

Context’s role as a schema in memory was shown by Bartlett’s 1932 research using the “War of the Ghosts” story in which participants were asked to recall the details of a Native American legend (therefore very unfamiliar in style to what they were used to), Bartlett found that participants

6


used their schemas to make the story more memorable to them but this resulted in distortion of the original story as it was changed to more accurately fit participants’ schemas.This distortion of memory to fit a preconceived schema is also seen in research by Allport & Postman (1947) who showed participants a scene with a black man being threatened by a white man with a knife, participants’ stereotypes and prejudices informed their schemas and most reported seeing the black man as the aggressor. Cohen (1981) also found schemas being influenced by prejudice and in turn affecting memory recall, in his experiment he showed participants a scene of a man and woman eating, participants were told the woman was either a librarian or waitress, this information influenced participants later recall of the woman in the scene (being more stereotypical if they were told the profession after viewing the video). Research by Holst & Pezdek (1992) found that participants’ scripts for robberies (how they think a robbery “should” be carried out from past experience from media sources etc.) influences their accuracy of recall when asked for testimony later, individual’s alter what actually happened to fit their scripts.

A method of avoiding this is to use reverse-order questioning. The reverse order recall technique is useful as humans develop memory scripts from an early age (around three) which inform us of how events usually pass (e.g. a script for how a typical visit to a bank or restaurant proceeds). When asked to describe the events of e.g. a bank robbery using forward order recall there is a risk that interviewees will simply recall their script for what normally occurs during a bank visit (as bank robberies are generally rare events in an individual’s life) so this forward order recall activates their “bank visit” memory script and interferes with their recall of the actual bank robbery. By asking interviewees to recall events in reverse order it minimises interference from their scripts by causing them to focus more on the salient details of the event, this can also be achieved by asking interviewees to recall backwards from their most vivid memory or the event. Reverse order recall is also useful in detecting lying during interviews (Vrij, Mann, Fisher, Leal, Milne & Bull, 2008).

Cognitive Interviewing techniques have been shown to enhance the ability of interviewees to recall details of events via being asked to explain every detail of the scene, by taking the perspective of another witness or by recalling the events in a different narrative order due to the recency effect (Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I. Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissain, I. V., Prosk, A. L., 1984; Geiselman, Fischer, MacKinnon & Holland 1985). Cognitive Interviewing has been shown to achieve greater accuracy of recall as the questions asked act as memory probes, placing individuals in the scene and reminding them of what happened at the time in a coherent narrative order (in the case of forward order questioning this allows questions to act as a probe to events happing in chronological order with each question providing a probe for the following event/question).Geiselman & Callot (1990) also found that recalling events in reverse order after recalling events in forward order enhanced recall to a larger degree than asking for forward recall twice.Fischer & Geiselman (1992) point out that reverse recall may enhance recall of event details as the memory is stored there may be multiple paths of access to it, if recalling in forward order fails to recall all details of an event then attempting to access the memory via reverse order recall can improve the recall of details.

It is expected that memories of an event that are recalled in the form of a narrative is likely to have more semantic content (the chronological ordering of the event uses the episodic buffer and

7


if the information is recalled in the form of a story it is likely to be stored in episodic long-term memory), however, it is also expected that schemas can distort accuracy as individuals allow their schemas for what “should” have happened to influence their recall of what “actually” happened.

The aim of this experiment is to investigate the claim that recall order can influence accuracy of memory of an event, whether forward recall or reverse recall have any significant influence on the accuracy of memory recall of an event by arranging questions about an event in different orders for each condition (reverse chronological order, chronological order and mixed order).The hypothesis is “Asking questions in order (chronological and reverse) will improve memory recall compared to mixed order“, the null hypothesis is “There is no significant effect of question order (chronological and reverse) on memory recall”.

8


Method

Design

The experiment was a single-blind, laboratory experiment using independent groups design. Single blind was chosen for this experiment to avoid participants knowing which experimental group they were in (chronological or reverse-chronological) or if they were in the control group (mixed/random) in order to avoid participant preconceptions influencing their performance. Sampling method used was opportunity sampling.A laboratory experiment was chosen as variables are more easily and precisely controlled, the experiment can be easily replicated, it allows for the identification of cause and effect via manipulation of the independent variable and it yields quantitative data which can be analysed in order to identify chance results.Independent groups design was chosen as it allows for more participants to be included in the overall sample increasing the external validity of the experiment, it avoids order effects and it reduces the risk of participants being vulnerable to demand characteristics.The independent variable was question order and had three levels (chronological, reverse-chronological and mixed order). The dependent variable was recall accuracy (number of questions answered correctly).After performing a pilot study in which multiple participants were tested for each condition at once and question sheets were used instead of a Powerpoint presentation it was found that the presence of multiple participants during testing and the ability of participants to read the question sheet in one go and answer questions in the order they chose damaged the validity of the study. Thius was corrected for by having participants tested singly and having the questions presented one at a time via a Powerpoint presentation.

Sample

30 participants were sampled via opportunity sampling from students on various undergraduate courses (including psychology) at Queen’s University Belfast.Participants’ age ranged from 18 – 26 with a total of 15 females and 15 males.

Material

Answer sheets used by participants (Appendix A) Consent forms signed beforehand (Appendix A)

Procedure

Participants were taken into a room, one participant per trial, the experiment was explained to each participant and they were given a consent form which they could sign. Participants who signed the consent form and agreed to take part were then seated and told they would watch a short film clip and then be questioned afterwards on what they could remember from the clip.Participants watched the film clip and were then given a 30 second break to help control for recency effects. After this break participants were handed an answer sheet and questions were put up one at a time using a PowerPoint presentation, questions were presented in one of three ways;

9


chronological (questions were asked about events that occurred in chronological order in the film clip e.g. the first question was about something from the start of the film clip, the middle questions were about events in the middle of the clip and the final questions were about events at the end of the clip, reverse chronological order had the first question refer to the last event in the clip etc. and mixed had the question presented in no particular narrative order). There were 20 questions in total. Once all questions had been answered the answer sheets were removed by the researchers and marked. Once all 30 answer sheets had been marked results were analysed using one-way between samples ANOVA via SPSS. A major advantage of sing one way ANOVA is that it reduces the risk of making a type I error which would be more likely to occur if multiple t-tests had been used instead. Outliers were controlled for.

10


Results

Table 1: Mean test score and standard error for each condition.

Question Order Mean Std. Error

Chronological 10.667 .662

Reverse 10.500 .628

Mixed 8.300 .628

Table 2: ANOVA summary table displaying total sum of squares, degrees of freedom and mean of squares for subjects, moves and error.

Source of Variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

Question Order 34.159 2 17.079 4.328 .024

Error 102.600 26 3.946

Total 2918.000 29

Table 3: Pairwise comparisons for chronological/mixed, reverse/mixed and reverse/chronological conditions.

(I) QuestionOrder (J) QuestionOrder Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig

Chronological ReverseMixed

.1672.367

.913

.913.857.015

Reverse Mixed 2.200 .888 .020

11


It can be seen from this table that there was a significant difference between Chronological and Mixed conditions (P=.015) and Reverse and Mixed conditions (P=.020). There was no significant difference between Chronological and Reverse conditions. These results support the hypothesis.

Figure 1: Graph showing mean score for chronological, reverse and mixed conditions.

12


Discussion

Results of the present study showed a significant difference in recall accuracy between chronological and mixed conditions (p=.015) and reverse and mixed conditions (p=.020) with no significant difference between chronological and reverse conditions (p=.857), showing that mean scores were significantly higher in the chronological condition (10.67) than in the mixed condition (8.3) and significantly higher in the reverse condition (10.5) than in the mixed condition (8.3).These results support research by Geiselman et al (1984) and Geiselman et al (1985) into cognitive interviewing techniques such as placing individuals in a narrative and reversing the order of questioning. These results also provide support for the theory that questions can act as probes for recall of an event by placing the event in an ordered, chronological narrative (Demaio & Rothgeb, 1996). As the reverse order condition had a significantly higher mean score than the mixed condition this provides support for the theory that reverse order questioning helps improve recall accuracy (Vrij et al, 2008) and research by Fischer & Geiselman (1990) who theorised that reverse order questioning may aid recall as the way memory is stored for events may have multiple paths of access when attempting to recall that memory, reverse order questioning can help access that memory when forward order questioning fails.

There are other possible explanations for these results besides that of cognitive interviewing techniques. These results can be interpreted using Baddeley’s (2000) model of working memory, as it consists of the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad, the Phonological Loop and the Episodic Buffer all working in tandem to store and process information and memory, as this experiment used a clip from a film there were visual images coupled with movement (processed by the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad), sound and verbal information (processed by the Phonological Loop) and the whole scene formed a coherent narrative with semantic content; the Episodic Buffer collated the visual and verbal/sound information from the Visuo-spatial Scratchpad and the Phonological Loop and organises it into a coherent chronological structure with semantic content. As multiple aspects of working memory were engaged in processing this information (in particular the work of the Episodic Buffer in making it make narrative, semantic sense to the individual) it may have caused this information to have been stored better in memory due to the multiple methods of encoding it went through (visual, auditory and semantic).

Another explanation of these results could come from Craik & Lockhart’s (1972) Levels of Processing model. Craik & Lockhart’s model postulates that information can be processed at a deep or shallow level, information processed at the shallow level is only processed in terms of its shape, physical structure etc. whereas information processed at the deep level is processed in terms of its semantic meaning, its relation to other memories and how it integrates and relates to other information being learned. In this experiment the film clip contained a narrative structure with each scene relating to the other to form a coherent story; it is possible that participants may have processed the information at a deeper level therefore making that information easier to retrieve. When asked questions in chronological or reverse order participants may have found it easier to

13


recall how each scene flowed into each other to form a coherent narrative and how each related to each other using information they had linked each scene to previously.

There were several methodological problems with this experiment as well. Sample size was only 30 participants which is too small to be easily generalised to the wider population, however, there was an equal number of males and females to control for sex differences.The sampling method used also impacted on the generalisability of the study. As participants were sampled via opportunity sampling from a rather limited population (students on undergraduate courses at Queen’s University Belfast) the sample is likely to have had similar socio-economic status, similar intelligence levels and similar cultural backgrounds.

The design of the experiment could have affected the usefulness of the results as well, laboratory experimental design lacks ecological validity and this is particularly problematic for the present study as it was investigating cognitive interviewing techniques which are generally used in eye-witness testimony. As the present study was conducted in a tightly controlled environment and participants were informed that they would be tested on their memory of the film clip afterwards it is difficult to apply the present study’s findings to a real situation an eye-witness may find themselves in as eye-witnesses are not informed of when an incident will occur and will not be predisposed to try and remember all the details of it, the present study also lacked other variables that would influence eye-witness recall such as the stress of the event and the influence of other eye-witnesses.

Independent groups design was used in order to prevent participants from becoming used to the clip from practice (as would be the case if repeated measures design was used), however, this brings in problems such as exacerbating the confounding effect of individual differences as each group consists of completely different participants who are likely to be different to each other group. For example one group could have had a more members with better memories than the other groups. Another problem this raises are disabilities amongst participants. Participants were not checked to ensure they all possessed similar eyesight or if any had any disabilities such as partial hearing or colour-blindness, these could have altered results for questions asking about phrases said, background details or colour-related questions. Participants were also not asked if they had recently seen the film that the clip was taken from so some participants may have seen the film recently or more times that other participants which would result in them being more likely to remember aspects of the scene as they serve as cues for retrieval of information regarding the scene from long-term memory rather than being anything to do with question order.As participants were selected from a university population during a period of heavy coursework and prior to exams it is also likely that they were under pressure from other commitments and this may have affected their ability to concentrate on the task at hand. Participants were also not tested at the same time of day, some members of a condition were tested during the morning, others during the afternoon or evening, and this could have confounded results as those tested in the early morning or in the evening may have suffered from fatigue, compromising their ability to concentrate.

The experiment itself had several problems, as mentioned previously another explanation for these results is the number of ways information could have been encoded (Baddeley’s working memory model), questions were not all able to be encoded in the same number of ways, for example certain questions only inquired about colours, others inquired about story progression (semantic content) and others inquired about verbal information (extracts of speech) some of the

14


questions could have referred to information that could have been encoded in two or more ways (e.g. a question asking about what a character did and said at a certain point combines verbal, visual and semantic information whereas a question simply asking the colour of something only contains visual information). To control for this, all questions should have had the same potential number of ways to be encoded in working memory as each other.Another problem with the questions was that two of the questions asked about handedness of certain characters in the clip, these questions had only two possible answers (left or right) and so could be answered correctly by chance, therefore possibly confounding results.

Future research into cognitive interviewing and this area of memory and recall should aim to proved a larger sample, match each group for each condition for an even balance of socio-economic classes, IQ level, occupation and cultural background whilst still using independent groups design (as repeated measure would result in improved results through practice), participants should all be tested at around the same time of day and al should be questioned beforehand to ensure any visual, aural or memory defects are accounted for, participants should also be questioned as to when the last time they saw the film which the clip was taken from with those who saw the film recently being replaced by other participants who have not seen the film recently (to avoid that information being used to aid them in the recall of the clip events). In future research participants should not be told of the exact nature of the experiment and should not be given so much information as to what was expected of them in the experiment as this harms the ecological validity of the research (eye-witnesses are typically not expecting to witness a crime, for example, and so are not primed to take in every detail of the scene. Future research should ensure that questions refer to events that can all be encoded in the same number of ways (visual, verbal/audible and semantically) and all questions should refer to events which either possess semantic content (deep processing) or content about just form and colour (shallow processing). Care should be taken when using questions referring to visual cues, as Paivio (1971) found that images stored as a concept tends to be less accurately recalled than images stored as a mental representation.

A possible area of future research from this experiment is to examine the link between Baddeley’s model of working memory and/or Craik & Lockhart’s levels of processing model of memory. Future research could examine if question order plays as big a role in recall accuracy as the amount of ways that information was processed or if it depends more on that information being semantically processed rather than simply processed for its surface features. Future research could also use an interviewer asking the questions rather than questions being presented on a PowerPoint slide with no interviewer input as Memon, Wark, Holley, Bull and Koehnken (1996) found that interviewer rapport can have an effect on memory recall accuracy.

15


References

Atkinson, R.C.; Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). "Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In Spence, K.W.; Spence, J.T.. The psychology of learning and motivation (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195

Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

Baddeley A (November 2000). "The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?". Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 4 (11): 417–423

Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing. A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671-684.

DeMaio, T. J. & Rothgeb, J.M. (1996). Cognitive interviewing techniques in the lab and in the field. In Schwarz, N. & Sudman, S. (Eds.) Answering Questions: Methodologies for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 177-195.

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

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

Geiselman, R.E., Fisher, R.P., MacKinnon, D.P., & Holland, H.L. (1985). Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 401-412.

Geiselman, R.E., & Callot, R. (1990). Reverse versus forward recall of script-based texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 141–144.

Jones, D. M. (2002, October). The 7±2 urban legend. Retrieved from www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/misart.pdf, Oct. 2002.

Memon, A., Wark, L., Holley, A., Bull, R. & Koehnken, G. (1996). Interviewer behaviour in investigative interviews. Psychology, Crime and Law,3, 181-201.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order . Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 253-265.

16


Appendix A1

17


Appendix A2

18


Appendix A3

19


20


21


22


23


24


Appendix B

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable:Score

Source Type III Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 34.159a 2 17.079 4.328 .024

Intercept 2790.914 1 2790.914 707.249 .000

QuestionOrder 34.159 2 17.079 4.328 .024

Error 102.600 26 3.946

Total 2918.000 29

Corrected Total 136.759 28

a. R Squared = .250 (Adjusted R Squared = .192)

Estimated Marginal Means

QuestionOrder

25

Estimates


QuestionOrder Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Chronological 10.667 .662 9.306 12.028

Reverse 10.500 .628 9.209 11.791

Mixed 8.300 .628 7.009 9.591


Univariate Tests


Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 34.159 2 17.079 4.328 .024

Error 102.600 26 3.946

The F tests the effect of QuestionOrder. This test is based on the linearly

independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

Post Hoc Tests

QuestionOrder

Multiple Comparisons


(I)

QuestionOrder

(J)

QuestionOrder

Mean

Difference (I-

J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Tukey

HSD

Chronological Reverse .17 .913 .982 -2.10 2.43

Mixed 2.37* .913 .040 .10 4.63

Reverse Chronological -.17 .913 .982 -2.43 2.10

Mixed 2.20 .888 .051 -.01 4.41

Mixed Chronological -2.37* .913 .040 -4.63 -.10

Reverse -2.20 .888 .051 -4.41 .01

Bonferroni Chronological Reverse .17 .913 1.000 -2.17 2.50

Mixed 2.37* .913 .046 .03 4.70

Reverse Chronological -.17 .913 1.000 -2.50 2.17

Mixed 2.20 .888 .060 -.07 4.47

Mixed Chronological -2.37* .913 .046 -4.70 -.03

Reverse -2.20 .888 .060 -4.47 .07

Based on observed means.

26


The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 3.946.

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Homogeneous Subsets

Score

QuestionOrder N

Subset

1 2

Tukey HSDa,b,c Mixed 10 8.30

Reverse 10 10.50 10.50

Chronological 9 10.67

Sig. .056 .981

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 3.946.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 9.643.

b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is

used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

c. Alpha = .05.

27


28

Documents

The Effect of Question Order on Recall Accuracy