The devil is not in the detail: Reply to Belli (2022)

Hartmut Blank; Ewa Skopicz-Radkiewicz; Vasudevi Reddy

doi:10.1002/acp.3931

The devil is not in the detail: Reply to Belli (2022)

Hartmut Blank^*, Ewa Skopicz-Radkiewicz, Vasudevi Reddy

^*Corresponding author for this work

Jagiellonian University in Kraków

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

Abstract

We welcome Belli's (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477) comments on our double misinformation research and the opportunity to discuss the involved processes. We agree that our studies do not rule out (some of) the interference mechanisms specified by Belli (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477)—because they were never designed for this purpose. Instead, the logic of our studies is at a molar level, potentially involving different molecular-level interference or non-interference mechanisms. We concede that specific interference mechanisms may operate in specific circumstances but maintain that our new research approach—adding further contradictory misinformation on top of existing misinformation to reduce the misinformation effect—does pose a challenge for interference accounts in general.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	482-486
Number of pages	5
Journal	Applied Cognitive Psychology
Volume	36
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3931
Publication status	Published - 27 Mar 2022

Keywords

discrepancy detection
eyewitness memory
memory conversion
memory interference
misinformation

Access to Document

10.1002/acp.3931

Cite this

@article{a48667cd0ebc44feb97d1590a4c894e9,

title = "The devil is not in the detail: Reply to Belli (2022)",

abstract = "We welcome Belli's (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477) comments on our double misinformation research and the opportunity to discuss the involved processes. We agree that our studies do not rule out (some of) the interference mechanisms specified by Belli (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477)—because they were never designed for this purpose. Instead, the logic of our studies is at a molar level, potentially involving different molecular-level interference or non-interference mechanisms. We concede that specific interference mechanisms may operate in specific circumstances but maintain that our new research approach—adding further contradictory misinformation on top of existing misinformation to reduce the misinformation effect—does pose a challenge for interference accounts in general.",

keywords = "discrepancy detection, eyewitness memory, memory conversion, memory interference, misinformation",

author = "Hartmut Blank and Ewa Skopicz-Radkiewicz and Vasudevi Reddy",

note = "Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by H2020 Marie Sk{\l}odowska-Curie Actions (86115). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",

year = "2022",

month = mar,

day = "27",

doi = "10.1002/acp.3931",

language = "English",

volume = "36",

pages = "482--486",

journal = "Applied Cognitive Psychology",

issn = "0888-4080",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The devil is not in the detail

T2 - Reply to Belli (2022)

AU - Blank, Hartmut

AU - Skopicz-Radkiewicz, Ewa

AU - Reddy, Vasudevi

N1 - Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (86115). Publisher Copyright: © 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PY - 2022/3/27

Y1 - 2022/3/27

N2 - We welcome Belli's (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477) comments on our double misinformation research and the opportunity to discuss the involved processes. We agree that our studies do not rule out (some of) the interference mechanisms specified by Belli (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477)—because they were never designed for this purpose. Instead, the logic of our studies is at a molar level, potentially involving different molecular-level interference or non-interference mechanisms. We concede that specific interference mechanisms may operate in specific circumstances but maintain that our new research approach—adding further contradictory misinformation on top of existing misinformation to reduce the misinformation effect—does pose a challenge for interference accounts in general.

AB - We welcome Belli's (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477) comments on our double misinformation research and the opportunity to discuss the involved processes. We agree that our studies do not rule out (some of) the interference mechanisms specified by Belli (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2022, 36, 477)—because they were never designed for this purpose. Instead, the logic of our studies is at a molar level, potentially involving different molecular-level interference or non-interference mechanisms. We concede that specific interference mechanisms may operate in specific circumstances but maintain that our new research approach—adding further contradictory misinformation on top of existing misinformation to reduce the misinformation effect—does pose a challenge for interference accounts in general.

KW - discrepancy detection

KW - eyewitness memory

KW - memory conversion

KW - memory interference

KW - misinformation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85127312773&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acp.3931

DO - 10.1002/acp.3931

M3 - Letter

AN - SCOPUS:85127312773

SN - 0888-4080

VL - 36

SP - 482

EP - 486

JO - Applied Cognitive Psychology

JF - Applied Cognitive Psychology

IS - 2

ER -

The devil is not in the detail: Reply to Belli (2022)

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this