Misattribution Theory

By and large, researchers assert that the customary understanding regarding research and the subsequent views garnered through the research of memory can straightforwardly provide justification for the understanding of false memories (Schacter, 1999). As a starting point it is easy to interpret the understanding of this theoretical paradigm by accepting that the reconstructive nature of memory was grounded in research by Bartlett’s 1932 study (as cited in Gleaves, et. al, 2004) in which he established that an individual’s experiences or occurrences are reconstructed in the light of present views, using available schemas, that is, knowledge structures. In fact, such schemas guide not only the retrieval of events, but even their storage (Straube,

2012). Therefore, in regards to the constructivist nature of schema theory, it suggest that while individuals encounter an event or occurrence of a what they believe to be a recognizable situation, whose constituents have been firmly exemplified in an engrained structuralized memory representation (or schema), commonly that configuration produces both factual and fabricated memories in relation to the experience (Schacter, 1999). This is seen to take place simply because, as researchers have noted there are similarities amongst the processes which generate both true and false memories. Thus it can be somewhat confidently established in the schema theory paradigm, by stating that at the level of the processes that construct and regulate them, true and false memories appear to be relatively analogous (Schacter, 1999).
Misattributions can be candidly defined as occurrences when memory is attributed to a wrong source (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993).

As such, they have been aptly referred to as source monitoring errors. Throughout research, studies have assembled a tri-part variant understanding regarding how source monitoring can come about, that is to say there are external, internal and reality misattributions in this theoretical paradigm (Johnson et al., 1993). External misattributions are explained as when an individual attributes the source of a genuine experience or occurrence having been attributed to another actual experience or occurrence. Through progressive research, this understanding has been suggested as a viable rationale in regards to the cause of numerous incorrect accusations stemming from inaccurate eyewitness testimony (Lindsay, 2007). This is explained as occurring because rather than choosing the correct perpetrator in police line-ups or police identification photographs it has been found that the witness is prone to choose a recognized individual instead (Lindsay, 2007). Put plainly, the memory of the individual in the police line up or picture is wrongly attributed to the memory of the crime. The understanding of internal source monitoring is defined as the aptitude of discriminating amongst what an individual actually thought and what she or he actually said (Johnson, 1997). There is a high likelihood that individuals could confuse what they think that they

may have stated something out loud but in all actuality, never actually spoke. Reality monitoring is seen as involving both internal and external source monitoring errors, as it is an intricate, multifaceted phenomenon (Johnson, 1997). Confabulations are a primary example of reality monitoring errors. Furthermore, individuals diagnosed with Korsakoff syndrome from chronic alcohol abuse or cerebral contusions regularly confabulate (Kopelman, 1999). That is, these individuals construct or generate memories of experiences or incidents which never actually took place, through the usage of preceding experiences and internal narrative, often with a temporal confusions and fragmented spatial context (Kopelman, 1999). What is more, there is evidence to display individuals not afflicted by these circumstances in good on rare occasions may confabulate (Burgess, 1996). This is exemplified through a situation where the individuals were persuaded that some occurrence in reality happened, but in all factuality never did. However, researchers are presently uncertain how exactly individuals which are entirely healthy manufacture confabulations.
Additionally, another approach of theories concentrates upon defective encoding of the presented words as a major determining factor in the production of false memory within what has been labeled as the Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT; Brainerd, & Reyna, 1998).

Brainerd, & Reyna, (1998) propose that human memories are stored as two opponent traces. Verbatim traces collect item-specific surface characteristics of information, and gist traces stock meanings of the information being processed. Therefore, in this conceptual classification, false memories are generated generally because of a dependence upon the gist traces because the verbatim traces lose strength and ultimately wane, which makes them less obtainable in memory (Brainerd, & Reyna, 1998). This ultimately suggests that false memories take place as a result of an incapability to isolate both gist and verbatim traces at the initial encoding

phase.
What is also important to note is that in this interpretation the FTT paradigm provides a potential explanation, if not accurate interpretation for the mistaken retrieval of the gist words which are not presented in the DRM false memory experiments; with the gist being the theme of the list presented (Brainerd, & Reyna, 1998). Taken together, both theories suggest that because of the thorough and meticulous semantic encoding process in human memory, the construction of false memories is simply an inadvertent end result.
Research conducted experimentally regarding source-monitoring errors frequently cites theories which accentuates the role of associative processes in creating false memories, known as activation monitoring. For instance, in the Deese–Roediger and McDermott theory (DRM) (Roediger & McDermott, 1995), false memories in these studies were induced by the associative priming procedure created for free recall by Deese (1959) and expanded by Roediger and McDermott (1995) in order to demonstrate that false memories can be produced in a controlled environment. In this paradigm participants are shown a list of semantically interrelated words and in this procedure, a significant proportion of individuals falsely recall words which are not present during the encoding phase. These words are seen as semantically associated with a critical lure which subsequently appears to activate an associate word when prompted with a list of semantically interrelated words (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). This is interpreted as an instance of internal source monitoring where the individuals’ source monitoring systems inaccuracy or malfunction in discriminating amongst what words are in fact presented and the critical word activation (Watson, Bunting, Poole, & Conway, 2005).
In regards to suggestibility it is seen to be to some degree analogous to misattribution, although there is the addition of overt suggestion (Loftus, & Palmer, 1974). This theoretical understanding is often presented in conjunction with what is labeled the misinformation effect; as it establishes that suggestible information along with information consisting of greater detailed an individual obtains following the creation of the actual memory can replace or transform the old memory (Loftus, 2005). The misinformation effect, as established and explained by researchers (see Loftus, & Palmer, 1974; Loftus, & Pickrell, 1995; Loftus, 2005), in the original lab controlled experimental paradigm, is generated through a basic tri-part progression which is comprised of the presentation of the original events, interceding events projected to mislead the participant, and a memory test (Pickrell, 2008, p.441). As a result, suggestions or misleading post-event information (MPI) has the potentiality to generate alterations of older memories. Furthermore, memories are for the most part, extremely apt to distortion at the retrieval phase of memory. This is markedly apparent within the aforementioned misinformation paradigm, in the understanding that the research suggest that the retrieval cue employed for recall may subsequently have a prominent effect upon the actual details of the memory which is retrieved (Loftus, & Palmer, 1974).
Essentially, the prominent studies and theoretical models in this area of research focus paint a picture of human memory as malleable and prone to errors. What is more, based upon the research false memories and the corruptions associated with them seem to originate issues originating at specific points in the creation of memories encoding, consolidation, and retrieval (Straube, 2012).