English and Nielson (2010) interpreted their findings as being consistent with the source monitoring
account of the misinformation effect. In their discussion they stated:
“…arousal helped keep memory for the video events and later questionnaire
information distinct, most likely by enhancing consolidation for both episodic and
source information.”
English & Nielson (2010, p. 41)
Analyse the references provided. Apply your understanding of the arguments and methods described
in these references to explain why English and Nielson’s (2010) interpretation of their results goes
beyond what is warranted by their design and data. Your essay should include the following
components:
1. An introductory paragraph that includes a) an introduction to the topic, b) a statement about
the importance and relevance of the topic, c) a clear statement of your argument, and d) a
clear overview of the direction of the essay.
2. A discussion of the limitations of the “yes” or “no” test of recognition memory used by English
and Neilson for identifying the cognitive processes that are proposed to underlie the
misinformation effect (HINT – what are some of the alternative explanations of the
misinformation effect when it is tested this way? Why is this a problem? etc);
3. An argument for an alternative approach to the design of the memory test component of the
experiment that would enable a replication of English and Nielson and a direct test of the
hypothesis that post-encoding arousal reduces the misinformation effect by enhancing
consolidation of source information (HINT – this will require addition of a task that assesses
source memory/monitoring);
4. An explanation of why and how the proposed alternative approach would allow stronger
conclusions to be drawn about the role of post-learning arousal in enhancing source
memory/monitoring in the misinformation effect.
5. A conclusion that summarises your arguments and states why the proposed study would
advance our understanding of the mechanism through which post-learning arousal reduces
the misinformation effect.