Post reference :
linkOkay let me get this out of the way. I had asked Mikwut to give me one study which correlated well with the Conneaut witnesses situation.
Mikwut wrote:But, I will begin with obviously relevant tests and then continue to post as time permits further relevant studies that each apply to certain situations regarding the witnesses.
So he’s starting with the best he’s got. I'll highlight key points I want to address is red.
The first I mentioned in my earlier post and will elaborate on again and further. I think the correspondence to key aspects of the conn. witnesses are beyond obvious and would be silly to state otherwise. It is in regards to adult subjects ability to recall narratives over time, even ones they have repeatedly been subject to. Bartlett originally produced these results over 80 years ago and they have recently been verified. I will quote from the Science of False Memory, I apologize but I only own the Kindle edition and so I can only cite to the Kindle (which is 5% - Locations 381-85 of 9,036 Kindle position):
Quote:
Bergman, E.T., & Roediger, H.L., III (1999) Can Bartlett’s repeated reproduction experiements be replicated? Memory & Cognition, 27, 937-947. They conducted a carefully controlled replication that showed the memory-distortion results that Bartlett reported can indeed be reproduced under comparable conditions. Bergman and Roediger reproduced Bartlett’s original procedures with great fidelity. Thirty subjects read The War of the Ghosts twice and 20 performed written recall 15 minutes later, half under strict instructions and half under lenient instructions. All 30 subjects returned 1 week later and performed written recall, for the first time for 10 subjects. Six months later the subjects were recruited again, and all who were contacted returned for a final recall test. The recall protocols were scored using propositional analysis (Mandler & Johnson, 1977), which represents a narrative as a series of idea units called propositions. Explicitly, protocols were scored for the number of correctly recalled propositions (out of 42 propositions that are present in The War of the Ghosts), for the number of minor distortions, and for the number of major distortions. Both major and minor distortions were common even on the immediate test, just as Bartlett originally reported. Also, responses that we would term false-memory reports were not only common on the immediate test, they increased markedly as a proportion of overall output as one moves from the immediate to the 1-week, and to the 6-month test, a phenomenon that is called the false-memory sleeper effect and that has been the subject of a good deal of recent investigation. By 6 months, propositions that are recalled with major distortions constitute the major form of output. Strictly speaking, then, as Bartlett concluded, after a few months, narrative recall consists mostly of false-memory reports. This remarkable pattern anticipates recent findings on the relative persistence of false versus true memories.
I think it obvious that if after only 6-months the major distortions out-number the minor and the true then the same could easily be said for the nearly 20 years later recall as in the case of the conn. Witnesses. This is the first of many and manifold relevant tests and studies for the conn. witnesses. I will elaborate on others as time permits. And again I stress the combinational nature of the studies I will present composes the overall evidence that conclusively shows that when taken together with more recent eyewitnesses the false-memory is more probable than not.
Note:
- Subjects read War of the ghosts..twice which would have taken approximately no more than 10 mintues because it consisted of 2 short paragraphs.
-the test was not a test which involved evaluating recall after given retrieval cues. In other words the test did not involve showing subjects various similar short stories at later date to determine if they could correctly identify which one they had read previously.
- the test did not question subjects whether or not they appreciated their memories were likely inaccurate..that is whether their recall was simply "just know" there was something familiar versus whether they "remembered"..
Conclusion: What this test showed is that memory misattribution occurs when subjects have poor source memory, that is brief exposure to information for which they did not have the opportunity to encode elaborately..via various perception encoding such as not only reading but hearing the story read, as well as discussing the story or having someone discuss it with them and relating it to their lives. Consequently over time, subjects unsure of details began substituting details they were familiar with, with details in the story they weren't as familiar with. As an example, a canoe in the story might become a boat later in recall.
In addition they were not given any retrieval cues to test later their recall accuracy. That is significant.
The test was not the situation experienced by the Conneaut witnesses...who had the Book of Mormon as a retrieval cue, who discussed and listened to Spalding read, who identified with the story personally as it was of interest at the time due to the mystery of the history of local Indians as well as who built the local mounds.
I’m sure if one were to ask subjects given the tests such as the Bartlett “War of the Ghosts” they would be well aware that their memories were not clear on details and even the general story ..due to not only their brief exposure but their inability to relate the story to themselves personally. The Conneaut witnesses appreciated details had deteriorated with time, but they noted the Book of Mormon was an excellent retrieval cue and the overall storyline they related to their subjective knowledge.
