Laney et al.
(2008)
EXPERIMENT 1
AIM :
To find if giving participants false feedback about them loving
to eat asparagus as a child, would produce a false memory.
It was a laboratory experiment with an independent measures
design.
Independent Variable was whether or not the participants had
a false belief about eating asparagus after receiving false
feedback.
Dependent Variable was the responses to the 5-self-report
questionnaire.
SAMPLE :
128 participants (99 females, 29 males) were recruited by
means of volunteer sampling from the University of
California . The mean age was of 20.8, and they received
course credit for their participation.
PROCEDURE
Participants during week 1, came to the lab in groups of 8 and
were deceived by being informed that they were
taking part in a study investigating ‘food preferences and
personality’. 5 questionnaires were completed: FHI, RQ,
Personality Measure, Social Desirability, and Eating Habits.
During Week 2, they returned to the lab and were allocated
randomly to either ‘love’ or ‘control’ conditions. They were
given a report about their childhood experiences based on
their questionnaires. participants in the ‘love’ condition had
the critical statement “you loved to eat cooked asparagus” in
their report. Those in the control condition had 3 filler items.
Participants were asked questions about the profile to ensure
that they had processed the feedback. Following this, the
participants completed the FHI and RQ to measure any
changes and responses. They also completed the FPQ, FCQ
and MBQ
RESULTS :
The 2 key issues the researchers wanted to investigate
were:
weather false asparagus related beliefs were formed.
whether the beliefs had consequences
FHI of both groups were compared and for the love group
(n=46) the average responses rose by 2.6 points. The
control group’s responses (n=51) rose by 0.2 points.
31 participants were excluded from results as they
believed they loved asparagus an give a 5+ score on the
FHI.
‘Love’ group has a greater chance of generating a false
memory/belief.
Believers:
Gave a low rating on the FHI in week one on loving
asparagus.
Gave a high rating on the FHI in Week 2.
Gave a positive ‘memory or belief1 on the MBQ.
48% of participants in the love condition were labelled as
believers (22 participants). Believers increased an average
of 4.5 points from week 1 to week 2 in the FHI. 10 had a
memory. 12 had a belief.
0 had a memory. 12 had a belief.
Conclusions
Positive false memories can be implanted.
False beliefs have consequences on behaviour and food
preference.
False belief effects:
increased rating on loving asparagus
increased willingness to spend on asparagus
intention to eat in the future.
great preference for it
Experiment 2
Aim
Investigate possible underlying mechanisms of false
memory consequence. To replicate the first experiment
to check
the reliability of findings.
Research Method, Design and
Variables
Lab experiment
Independent measures design
Independent variable: whether the participant had the
false belief or not.
Dependent variable: response to the 4 questionnaires
and the slideshow.
Sample
103 undergraduate students from the University of
Washington who received course credit. 64 females and
39
males with a mean age of 19.9. Love group had 58
participants; control group had 45 participants.
Procedure
No deception used. Participants completed the FHI, RQ,
FPQ, PM and SDS. Most of the first experiment’s
procedure
had been repeated. During week 2, participants were
randomly allocated to the ‘love’ or ‘control’ condition.
The
report of the participants in the ‘love’ condition consisted
of the feedback: “you loved asparagus the first time you
ate
it”. After, participants read their profile, they were
required to give details about their memory of eating
asparagus.
If they did not, they were asked on what might have
happened. The control group did not do this. All
participants
then were asked their most important food related
childhood event that the food profile did not report.
During week 2, participants were shown a slideshow
which displayed 20 photos, each for 30 seconds. They
were
asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 8 the following:
how appetising they found it.
how disgusting they found it.
the expertise of the photographer.
Participants then completed the FHI, RQ, FPQ and MBQ.
They were fully debriefed afterwards.
Result
FHI response on loving asparagus from the love group
(n=40) rose by an average of 2.5 points. control group
(n=33)
response increased by 1.0 point. 30 participants were
excluded from analysis.
Those who were told that they loved asparagus had a
greater chance of generating a false memory or belief. 40
participants were believers.
On the RQ, neither believers or non-believers had an
increased desire to eat asparagus.
On the FPQ, believers reported a greater desire to eat
asparagus.
On the photograph ratings, believers rated asparagus as
more appetising and less disgusting than the ratings of
nonbelievers.
Conclusion:
Participants can be given for supposed to food beliefs and
these beliefs have consequences on behaviour, food
preference, and food memories. Believers are more likely
to rate asparagus as more appetising and less disgusting.
The false memory was the cognitive mechanism that
caused participants to process the images more positively
and
this is due to familiarity, or enhanced fluency.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The sample consisted of university students. This
introduces participant variables that could distort results
therefore, reducing validity of the research.
The distractor questionnaires prevented participants
from knowing the true aims of the study which in turn,
controlled demand characteristics and social desirability
bias. Therefore, the research has internal validity.
The questionnaires helped to operationalize the
dependent variable and, also allowed the standardised
collection of data as quantitative data was gathered.
Quantitative data helps in data analysis and in comparing
results.
Completing a questionnaire and ordering in real life
restaurants may not have the same outcome therefore,
there is little ecological validity.
As the study was a snapshot study, we cannot determine
how long the effects of false memories last. A
longitudinal study would determine the durability of false
memories on food preferences and behavioural
consequences.
The male to female ratio was not equal, so results are
not much generalizable to the target population.
