Download - Scholarworks @ CSU San Marcos

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS PROJECT SIGNATURE PAGE PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQIDRErv1ENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE PROJECT TITLE:
AUTHOR:
The Effect ofMindfulness Meditation on Susceptibility lo Misinfom1ation
Whitney C. Hawkins
DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE:
May 8, 2017
THE PROJECT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PROJECT COMMITTEE IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE.
Dustin Calvillo. Ph.D.
PROJECT COMMITTEE CHAIR
Marie Thomas, Ph.D
PROJECT COMMITTEE MEMBER
Carrick Williams. Ph.D.
PROJECT COMMITTEE MEIVIBER
~·
SIGNATURE
~- ~ft/'1
SIGNATURE
<li~
15(<i(ll
DATE
s/e-/,'7­
DATE
S/&/17
DATE
Running head: MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
The Effect of Mindfulness Meditation on Susceptibility to Misinformation
Whitney Hawkins
California State University San Marcos
1
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
2
Abstract
Eyewitnesses exposed to misleading post-event information often unknowingly incorporate false
information into their testimony. The misinformation paradigm is used to study false memories
by presenting participants with information about a crime, providing misleading post-event
information about the crime, and finally having them complete a memory test. The
misinformation effect occurs when participants remember misleading post-event information as
having occurred in the original event. The goal of the current study was to examine the effects
of a mindfulness induction at different points during a misinformation task on true memories and
misinformation effects. Four groups of participants completed a misinformation task; three
groups received a mindfulness induction, each at a different time during the task, and one group
did not receive a mindfulness induction. It was predicted that misleading post-event information
would be incorporated into memory most often when mindfulness was induced before the postevent information and least often when mindfulness was induced before the original information.
It was also predicted that the endorsement of true items would be similar in pre-video and prePEI groups and would be higher than the pre-test and control groups. Results indicated that all
groups showed a misinformation effect, but the size of the effect did not differ across conditions.
There were also no significant differences in endorsing true information across conditions.
These findings suggest that a brief mindfulness induction does not affect susceptibility to the
misinformation effect. Limitations and future directions for research are discussed.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
3
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Dustin
Calvillo. He has guided me for five years, always quickly responding to my ceaseless emails,
and never hesitating to answer questions I should undoubtedly know the answers to. He has the
makings of a genius and acknowledging him will surely make him uncomfortable, so I had to do
it. This thesis would not be possible without him.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Carrick Williams and Dr. Marie
Thomas. Dr. Williams is always prepared with a whiteboard marker in hand to help me break
down my questions and figure out the answers, even late at night. Dr. Thomas has provided the
mindfulness expertise needed for this project and I thank her for sparking my interest in
mindfulness meditation as an undergraduate. They have both been amazing committee members
and I thank them for their unconditional support.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
4
Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
The Effect of Mindfulness Meditation on Susceptibility to Misinformation ................................. 5
Susceptibility to Misinformation ............................................................................................. 6
Effects of Mindfulness on Cognitive Processing .................................................................... 9
Mindfulness and False Memories .......................................................................................... 13
Method ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Power Analysis and Participants ........................................................................................... 17
Materials .................................................................................................................................. 18
Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 20
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Assumptions............................................................................................................................. 22
Mindfulness Manipulation Check (Hypothesis 1) ................................................................ 22
Misinformation Manipulation Check (Hypothesis 2) .......................................................... 23
Mindfulness on Magnitude of Misinformation Effect (Hypothesis 3)................................ 23
Mindfulness on Endorsement of True Items (Hypothesis 4) .............................................. 24
Sensitivity ................................................................................................................................. 24
Response Bias .......................................................................................................................... 24
References ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 37
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
5
The Effect of Mindfulness Meditation on Susceptibility to Misinformation
A false memory is a type of memory distortion in which people remember detailed
information about a past event that either never occurred or occurred differently from the way
they remember (Loftus, 2003). In laboratory experiments, participants have been led to falsely
remember a variety of events, including going on a hot air balloon ride (Wade, Garry, Read, &
Lindsay, 2002) and having a negative experience with a Disneyland character (Berkowitz,
Laney, Morris, Garry, & Loftus, 2008). In real-world eyewitness situations, false memories of
crimes can have dire consequences.
Eyewitnesses who are exposed to misleading post-event information (PEI) are likely to
incorporate the incorrect information into their memory for the original event and thus include it
into their testimony. This type of false memory is known as the misinformation effect (Loftus,
2005). In a typical misinformation experiment, participants view a crime being committed either
in the form of pictures or a video. They are then given some post-event information that often
has the same general occurrences as the original information, but a few details are changed in
order to mislead participants. Participants are finally given a memory test to determine if they
can remember details from the original information source. The misinformation effect occurs
when participants remember some information as happening in the original event when, in fact, it
occurred in the post-event information. It is important to understand what makes people more or
less prone to these misinformation errors in order to know if the eyewitnesses are reliable.
Research has found increased working memory capacity decreases misinformation effects
(Calvillo, 2014; Jaschinski & Wentura, 2002; Zhu et al., 2010) while picture induced emotion
(Porter, Spencer, & Birt, 2003; Van Damme & Seynaeve, 2013; Van Damme & Smets, 2014)
and divided attention (Lane, 2006; Zaragoza & Lane, 1998) increase misinformation effects.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
6
One mechanism that has been found to influence cognitive processes is mindfulness.
Mindfulness is defined as paying attention to the present moment, purposefully, and nonjudgmentally (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Research on mindfulness using the public (as opposed to
Buddhist Monks) was introduced around 1979 (Barker, 2014). This newly integrated
mindfulness often starts by having participants sit in a comfortable position and are instructed to
think about or on what to focus including, but not limited to, a candle flame (Lippelt, Hommel,
& Colzato, 2014) or the sensation of breathing (Ainsworth, Eddershaw, Meron, Baldwin, &
Garner, 2013). Among other topics, research has investigated the effects on mindfulness
interventions on attention (Chambers, Lo, & Allen, 2008; Moore & Malinowski, 2009; Semple,
2010), working memory capacity (Chambers et al., 2008; Quach, Mano, & Alexander, 2016;
Mrazek, Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013) and emotion regulation (Arch & Craske,
2006; Ortner & Kilner, 2007).
Given the impact of mindfulness on these cognitive functions, it is surprising that
research has yet to examine the effect of mindfulness inductions on the misinformation effect. In
the current study, I tested whether a mindfulness intervention had an effect on true memories and
misinformation effects in the misinformation paradigm. I will discuss the effects of attention,
working memory capacity, and emotion on the misinformation effect and then discuss the effects
of mindfulness training on attention, working memory capacity, and emotion regulation.
Susceptibility to Misinformation
Attention. Attention is an important factor in decreasing the misinformation effect. Past
research has found that divided attention at either the original event or during the post-event
information can lead to increased misinformation effects. Lane (2006) theorized that sourcespecifying information becomes lost when attention is divided during the original event. Once
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
7
the original event is complete and the contextual source details are not encoded, there are few
characteristics to differentiate the original information from the post-event information leading to
an increase in misinformation. Zaragoza and Lane (1998) had participants either identify music
while reading post-event information or only read the post-event information. The purpose of
having participants identify music while reading the post-event information was to induce
divided attention. Results indicated that the divided attention group was significantly more
likely to incorporate the misleading post-event information into their memory of the original
event. Lane (2006) conducted a similar study and separated participants into either a divided
attention task or a control misinformation task. Participants in the divided attention task listened
to music while viewing slides (presentation of the original event); participants in the control
condition did not listen to music during the slides. Results revealed that participants in the
divided attention task had poorer memory for the true items and had increased misinformation
effects compared to the control condition. These studies support the idea that divided attention
can lead to an increased misinformation effect. English and Nielson (2010) conducted an
experiment examining the effect of arousal on the misinformation effect and found increased
arousal after presentation of the misinformation items led to decreased acceptance of
misinformation one week after presentation. Kahneman (1973) found that arousal leads to
increased use of attentional resources so we can interpret English and Nielson’s (2010) results as
we would studies on attention and the misinformation effect.
Working memory capacity. Working memory is a system of memory that holds
available mental representations for processing (Oberauer, Farrell, Jarrold, & Lewandowsky,
2016). Research has shown there is a negative relationship between working memory capacity
and susceptibility to the misinformation effect (Calvillo, 2014; Jaschinski & Wentura, 2002; Zhu
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
8
et al., 2010). The predominant explanation for this relationship is that participants with greater
working memory capacity are better able to remember the details of the original event
(Jaschinski & Wentura, 2002; Zhu et al., 2010), possibly due to being more attentive during the
original event. This negative relationship between working memory capacity and susceptibility
to the misinformation effect has been shown using both the n-back measure (Zhu et. al, 2010)
and the operation span (OSPAN; Calvillo, 2014; Jaschinski & Wentura, 2002). A meta-analysis
has also found a significant negative relationship between working memory capacity and the
misinformation effect (Calvillo, Hawkins, Amoroso, & Waltrip, 2017).
One theory used to explain the relationship between working memory capacity and the
misinformation effect is the source-monitoring framework (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay,
1993). Gerrie and Garry (2007) explain that people use qualitative characteristics of
remembered information to determine if it is old or new. As it pertains to the misinformation
paradigm, when someone is presented post-event information that is inconsistent with the
original event, that person may recognize it as new information depending on the person’s ability
to monitor the sources of information when they are presented. Gerrie and Garry (2007) also
theorize that people with higher working memory capacity are better able to source monitor.
Kane, Bleckley, Conway, and Engle (2001) theorize that individual differences in working
memory capacity may be due to a difference in executive controlled attention. This executive
controlled attention includes the ability to maintain information in an accessible and active state,
even in the face of distractions (Kane et al., 2001). Integrating this theory, increased working
memory capacity should lead to higher scores on attentional measures such as the OSPAN
because of this increased executive control of attention. Taken together, the results of past
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
9
research and the source-monitoring framework indicate higher working memory capacity is
predictive of lower misinformation effects.
Emotion. Past research indicates increased emotion (as induced by looking at positive or
negative valence pictures) has a significant impact on the misinformation effect. Porter, Brinkle,
Riley, and Baker (2014) speculate a possible reason for this occurrence is due to emotion causing
a narrowed field of view. They theorize that once a person is primed with either a positive or
negative emotion, that person focuses on aspects of the scene that parallel his or her emotion and
tends to ignore non-mood congruent aspects. Van Damme and Smets (2014) had participants
look at positive valence-low arousal, positive valence-high arousal, negative valence-low
arousal, or positive valence-high arousal pictures. The results indicated three of the four picture
types were significantly more likely to endorse misleading post-event information compared to
controls (positive valence-low arousal was not). Porter et al. (2003) found that participants who
were presented with a negative scene (graphic fatal accident) before misleading post-event
information were twice as likely to recall the misinformation than participants who were
presented with either a positive or neutral scene before misinformation. Porter et al. (2014)
found that both positive and negative emotional priming at encoding lead to an increased
susceptibility to misinformation. This may be due to the narrowing of focus induced by the
pictures not allowing participants to take in all of the presented information. Taken together,
these results suggest emotion is significantly positively related to the misinformation effect; thus,
people who are better able to regulate their emotions should be less susceptible to
misinformation effects.
Effects of Mindfulness on Cognitive Processing
Attention. Mindfulness meditation has been found to significantly improve performance
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
10
on attentional tasks such as the Stroop task and the d2-concentration and endurance test. One of
the reasons this enhanced attention occurs is because during mindfulness induction, participants
are given instructions to pay attention to one object or sensation (most often breathing) and are
instructed to ignore any distractions. This focused attention during the induction is thought to
enhance the participant’s attentional control even after the mindfulness induction is completed
(Zeidan, Johnson, Diamond, David, & Goolkasian, 2010). Mindfulness has also been found to
help decrease distractions by reducing mind wandering (Mrazek et al., 2013). Semple (2010)
compared participants in a four-week mindfulness meditation group, progressive relaxation
group, or a waitlist group on sustained selective attention using the Continuous Performance
Test. Results indicated that the mindfulness meditation group had improved scores on the
sustained selective attention tasks that were not seen in either the progressive relaxation group or
the waitlist group. Moore and Malinowski (2009) similarly measured attentional performance of
mindfulness meditators versus non-meditators using multiple cognitive tasks and found that the
meditators had significantly higher scores on the d2-concentration and endurance test and the
Stroop task compared to the control group. Chambers et al. (2008) examined the effect of a 10week mindfulness training on reaction time. Results indicated participants in the mindfulness
group had a significant decrease in reaction time, a difference not seen in the control group.
Wenk-Sormaz (2005) found that even a single 20-minute session of mindfulness significantly
reduced the Stroop effect, which may be due to mindfulness increasing attention and decreasing
habitual responding. Taken together, the results of Semple (2010), Moore and Malinowski
(2009), Chambers et al. (2008), and Wenk-Sormaz (2005) indicate mindfulness training can lead
to significant improvements in attentional control.
Working memory capacity. There has been some research examining the effect of
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
11
mindfulness training on working memory capacity. Chambers et al. (2008) separated
participants into either a mindfulness group or a control group and measured participants
working memory capacity using the backward digit span. It is important to note that the
backward digit span is primarily used to measure short-term memory; however, Engle (2002)
found working memory and short-term memory constructs are highly correlated. Results
indicated the mindfulness group had a significant increase in working memory capacity after a
10-day meditation course; the control group did not show a significant increase across
conditions. This increased working memory capacity may stem from Kane et al.’s (2001) theory
of increased executive attention. Quach et al. (2016) separated participants into an eight-week
mindfulness meditation group, yoga group, or control group and completed the OSPAN as a
measure of working memory capacity. Results indicated participants in the mindfulness
meditation group had significantly increased working memory at time two compared to time one.
There was no significant difference between time one and time two for either the yoga or waitlist
group. Mrazek et al. (2013) had participants take either an eight-session mindfulness course or a
control course and gave participants the OSPAN and a reading comprehension test before and
after the class. Results indicated the participants in the mindfulness class had significant
improvements in both working memory capacity and reading comprehension compared to the
control course. Jha, Stanley, Kiyonaga, Wong, and Gelfand (2010) found higher mindfulness
training practice in military cohorts improved working memory capacity compared to a military
control group and a civilian control group. Similar results have also been found using an n-back
task (Zeiden et al., 2010). Taken together, these results indicate mindfulness training can
significantly increase working memory capacity. It has been theorized the positive relationship
between mindfulness and working memory capacity is due to the increase in attention and focus
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
12
that is seen after mindfulness induction (Mrazek et al., 2013).
Emotion. Past research has suggested mindfulness meditation can improve emotion
regulation by encouraging participants to non-judgmentally bring their awareness to the present
moment. This awareness helps to promote self-control and thus increases emotional control
(Tang, Tang, & Posner, 2016). Arch and Craske (2006) had participants complete an affect scale
while monitoring their heart rate, complete either a 15-minute mindfulness induction or a mindwandering induction, complete another affective scale, then watch negative affective slides while
monitoring their heart rate. Results from this study indicated that the mindfulness group reported
lower negative affect and maintained lower heart rates between time 1 and time 2. In the second
study of Ortner and Kilner (2007), participants viewed neutral, pleasant, and unpleasant scenes
and then they completed a reaction time measure. Participants then completed either a sevenweek mindfulness training, relaxation training, or nothing; after seven weeks participants
completed the same reaction time task again. Results showed that the mindfulness group had
significant decreased reaction time to the negative scenes between time 1 and 2. The relaxation
induction group had a significant increase in reaction time between time 1 and time 2. Finally,
the control group did not show any significant difference in reaction time between time 1 and
time 2. These results suggest that the mindfulness group was better able to not dwell on the
negative stimuli, which led to faster reaction times compared to the other two groups. Watier
and Dubois (2016) also found participants with low state mindfulness who received a 10-minute
mindfulness induction had less interference in the Emotional Stroop task compared to a control
group. These studies demonstrate mindfulness meditation can improve emotion regulation.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
13
Mindfulness and False Memories
Past research has examined misinformation effects and mindfulness separately, but only
two studies have been conducted to examine the effect of mindfulness on false memories, both of
which used the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Roediger & McDermott, 1995).
Because these studies are the closest past research has come to my study, I will explain them in
more detail. In DRM experiments, participants are presented a list of words, each of which are
related to one non-presented critical lure. For example, participants may be presented with sit,
seat, desk, bench, couch, etc., that are all related to the non-presented critical lure chair.
Participants often falsely remember the non-presented critical lure as having been presented in
the word list (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). In two of three experiments conducted by Wilson,
Mickes, Stolarz-Fantino, Evrard, and Fantino (2015) researchers examined the effects of
mindfulness induction on susceptibility to false memories using the DRM paradigm. In
Experiment 1, participants were given either a 15-minute mindfulness or mind-wandering
induction followed by DRM word lists and a recall test. Experiment 2 was switched to a pretestposttest design which presented participants with DRM word lists, had them complete a recall
test, complete either a mindfulness induction or a mind-wandering induction, followed by more
DRM wordlists, and a final recall test. Results of both experiments showed that the mindfulness
groups were significantly more likely to falsely remember the non-presented critical lure as
having been present in the word lists.
Rosenstreich (2015) also conducted two experiments to examine the effects of
mindfulness induction on false memories using the DRM paradigm. In Experiment 1, all
participants were presented with DRM wordlists then completed a recognition test. Participants
were then divided into either a mindfulness training group or a waitlist group. The mindfulness
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
14
training consisted of five 30-minute weekly sessions of mindfulness training accompanied by
daily home practice. After five weeks, all participants were presented with additional DRM
wordlists and completed another recognition test. In Experiment 2, participants were assigned to
either a 30-minute mindfulness induction or mind-wandering induction. After completion of the
induction, participants were presented with DRM word lists then were given a recall test.
Results from both experiments support the findings of Wilson et al. (2015); the mindfulness
groups more often remembered the non-presented critical lure as having been presented
compared to the control groups. Taken together, the findings from Wilson et al. (2015) and
Rosenstreich (2015) indicate mindfulness increases false memories in the DRM paradigm.
Although the results of these studies suggest mindfulness training may not be effective in
decreasing false memories, it is important to note these studies were completed using the DRM
paradigm, not the misinformation paradigm. Studies have shown that susceptibility to false
memories in the DRM and the misinformation paradigms are unrelated (Calvillo & Parong,
2016; Ost et al., 2013). Calvillo and Parong (2016) suggested that DRM effects and
misinformation effects are not related because of how the false memories are generated. DRM
effects are the result of self-generated internal suggestion (lures) while misinformation effects
are the result of external suggestions. In addition, Hardt, Einarsson, and Nader (2010) classified
misinformation effects as a result from reconsolidation but did not include DRM effects, which
may be due to encoding (Calvillo & Parong, 2016). This indicates that even though mindfulness
significantly increases false memories in the DRM paradigm, it may have different effects as an
intervention in the misinformation paradigm.
The Present Study
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
15
The current literature suggests that mindfulness inductions increase working memory
capacity (Chambers et al., 2008; Mrazek et al., 2013; Quach et al., 2016), attentional control
(Chambers et. al, 2008; Moore & Malinowski, 2009; Semple, 2010), and emotion regulation
(Arch & Craske, 2006; Ortner et al., 2007). Research has also demonstrated that increased
working memory capacity (Calvillo, 2014; Jaschinski & Wentura, 2002; Zhu et. al, 2010) and
attentional control (Lane, 2006; Zaragoza & Lane, 1998) decrease misinformation effects and
increased emotion (Porter et. al, 2003; Van Damme & Seynaeve, 2013; Van Damme & Smets,
2014) increases misinformation effects. There has yet to be research examining the direct effects
of a mindfulness induction on misinformation effects. The current study examined the
proportion of true memories and misinformation effects reported by four groups of participants
using a true/false recognition test. All participants watched a video of a crime. Three of the four
groups of participants received a mindfulness induction and one group was a control group. Of
the three mindfulness induction groups, the pre-video group received the induction before the
original video, the pre-PEI group received the induction before the post-event information, and
the pre-test group received the induction before the memory test. All three groups received the
same mindfulness induction, and all participants completed the same true/false recognition test.
The recognition test was comprised of three types of questions: 1) true items were consistent
with the information in the original video and post-event information, 2) misinformation items
were consistent with the post-event information but inconsistent with the original video, and 3)
foils were inconsistent with both the original video and the post-event information.
Hypotheses:
1) Mindfulness scores would be higher immediately after mindfulness induction compared
to after the control task. This would indicate participants were more mindful after the
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
16
mindfulness induction than after the history of radio recording.
2) True items would be endorsed more frequently than misinformation items, and foil items
will be endorsed the least. Greater endorsement of misinformation items than foils would
indicate the misinformation effect.
3) The magnitude of the misinformation effect would be highest in the pre-PEI group,
followed by the control, the pre-test, and the pre-video groups, respectively. Because
mindfulness seems to improve attention and working memory capacity, I hypothesized
that the largest misinformation effect would be generated when mindfulness is given
immediately before the post-event information. This is due to the mindfulness helping
the participant to learn the post-event information better than the other groups, which
would then lead them to more likely endorse the items consistent with that post-event
information. The control group would have the second highest misinformation effect
because they would not receive any mindfulness induction. The pre-video would have
the smallest misinformation effect because they would receive the mindfulness before the
original video, which would increase memory for the true items on the memory test.
4) The endorsement of true items would be similar in pre-video and pre-PEI groups and
would be higher than the pre-test and control groups. Mindfulness has been found to
increase memory so the two groups that receive mindfulness before any information (the
pre-video group and the pre-PEI group) should have better memory compared to the
other two groups. The pre-test and the control groups should have similar numbers of
true memories.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
17
Method
Power Analysis and Participants
My second and third hypotheses were expected to generate the most important findings,
so I focused the power analyses on those. For my second hypothesis, a power analysis for an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run using G*Power software version 3.0 (Erdfelder, Faul, &
Buchner, 1996). An alpha level of .05 (two-tailed) and a power of .80 were chosen. Based on
the analyses conducted by Calvillo et al. (2016) for the misinformation stimuli, a large effect size
was expected (d = 2.00). This effect size was calculated by subtracting the endorsement of foil
items from the endorsement rate of the misinformation items. Based on these calculations, a
total sample size of 76 was needed for the study. For my third hypothesis, a power analysis for
an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run using G*Power software version 3.0. An alpha level
of .05 (two-tailed) and a power of .80 were chosen. Based on the on the analyses conducted by
Wilson et al. (2015) examining the effects of mindfulness on the DRM paradigm, a small to
medium effect size was expected (d = .33). This effect size is for the difference in memory of
critical lures before mindfulness minus the memory for critical lures after mindfulness. Based
on these calculations, a total sample size of 384 was needed for the study.
Participants were recruited from the human participant pool at California State University
San Marcos. This pool consists of psychology students who volunteer to participate in research
projects conducted at the university. Students participated in exchange for credit toward a
research requirement in a lower division psychology course. Three hundred fourteen participants
were initially recruited; twelve participants were excluded due to computer malfunctions. Three
hundred and two participants (81% women) aged 18 to 32 (M = 19.92, SD = 2.37) were included
in the final analyses. This sample size with the small to medium expected effect size, yielded a
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
18
power of .69. Of the participants, 63% had never previously practiced mindfulness meditation,
26% complete a mindfulness meditation less than once per month, and 11% meditate more than
once per month.
Design
I employed a 4 (induction condition) X 4 (statement type) mixed factorial design to test
the effects of mindfulness induction on number of true memories and misinformation effects.
The induction was between participants and the statement type was within participants. The four
induction times were before the original video (pre-video), before the post-event information
(pre-PEI), before the memory test (pre-test), and no induction (control). There were two types
of true items, misinformation items, and foil items. One type of true statement corresponded to
the both the original video and post-event information and the other type of true statement
corresponded to the original video only. The misinformation statements corresponded only to
the post-event information, and the foil statements did not correspond to either the original video
or the post-event information. The dependent variable was the endorsement of items on the
recognition test.
Materials
Mindfulness induction. The mindfulness induction was a 10-minute audio recording of
a script taken from Erisman and Roemer (2010). It began by instructing participants to focus
their attention on the feeling of their body in the chair and the feeling of the air touching their
skin. The recording continued by instructing the participants to focus on their breathing and the
feeling of the breath entering and exiting the body. Throughout the recording, participants were
instructed to bring their attention back to their breath if their mind began to wander. This
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
19
mindfulness script was chosen because it was the duration needed and had been successfully
used in a previous study (Erisman & Romer, 2010).
Manipulation check. I used the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS) to determine if the
mindfulness induction was effective. The TMS was developed by Lau et al. (2006) and is a 13item questionnaire in which respondents rate on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all; 4 =
very much) the level of state awareness and attention that had occurred during the induction. An
example item is “I was more concerned with being open to my experiences than controlling or
changing them.” This scale has high internal consistency (α = .87; Lueke & Gibson, 2016).
Filler audio. I used an audio recording of the history of radio (Modern marvels, 1997).
This active control is common for mindfulness inductions (Lloyd, Szani, Rubenstein, Colgary, &
Pereira-Pasarin, 2016). This recording began by explaining how the radio was invented and how
it was first used for military communication. The recording continued by discussing the first
time music was played and how that led to radios in homes. The recording discussed the
struggle for control over broadcasts and patents and finished by explaining some radio tragedies
such as the infamous War of the Worlds broadcasts. The recording was 40-minutes long and
was been broken into four 10-minute segments.
Video. The original event video for the misinformation task was taken from Takarangi et
al. (2006). It is a 6.5-minute video depicting an electrician entering and working in an
unoccupied house, rifling through the owners’ belongings, and stealing some items. The video
was played without audio.
Post-event information. Participants simultaneously read and listened to an automated
narration describing the events in the video. Presenting the information in both written and audio
format ensured all participants received the information at the same pace. The information in the
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
20
narrative was consistent with the original video, with the exception of four items: whether the
bed was made, the color of the mug near the electrician, the magazine he looked through, and the
picture hanging on the wall. The narrative was four minutes long and was shown on the
computer screen, broken into one paragraph per slide, with the audio played simultaneously
through speakers.
Memory test. The memory test consisted of a 16-item true-or-false recognition test. It
included four items consistent with both the video and the post-event information (true in both
original video and post-event information), four items consistent in the original video and not
reinforced in the post-event information (true in original video only), four items from the postevent information that contradicted the video (misinformation items), and four items that were
inconsistent with both video and narrative (foils). An example true in both original video and
post-event information item is, “The name on the van was ‘AJ’s electricians,’” which occurred in
both the original video and the post-event information. An example true in original video only
item is, “Eric was wearing a tool belt,” which occurred in the video but was not mentioned in the
post-event information. An example misinformation item is, “The magazine Eric read was Time
magazine”; he read Newsweek in the video but it was described as Time in the narrative. Finally,
an example foil is, “Eric ate a banana”; he ate an apple in the video and it was described as an
apple in the narrative.
Procedure
Participants signed up for a session online. Before arriving, participants were assigned to
one of four groups: pre-video, pre-post-event narrative, pre-test, and control. Participants in
three of the four groups received a mindfulness induction at different times during a
misinformation task (and a control task at other times), whereas participants in the fourth group
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
21
only received control tasks. When participants arrived, they were greeted by a research assistant.
The elements of informed consent were explained and they were given the consent form. Once
they had signed the form, they received instructions for the study. They were told they would
listen to an audio clip. After the recording, participants answered the Toronto Mindfulness Scale
questionnaire. After the questionnaire, all participants watched a video of an electrician entering
a house and stealing some items. Once the video was complete, participants listened to another
audio clip then completed the same Toronto Mindfulness Scale. Participants were presented
with a narration of the original event but with a few details changed. After the narration,
participants listened to the last audio clip, completed another Toronto Mindfulness Scale, and
then completed the recognition test. Participants were then thanked and debriefed.
After researchers began the audio clips, they left the room and watched the participants
through a one-way mirror. Once the audio clip ended, the researcher re-entered the room. The
pre-video group received a 10-minute mindfulness induction as the first audio file; the pre-PEI
group, pre-test group, and control group listened to a clip on the history of radio. For the second
audio clip, the pre-PEI group listened to the mindfulness induction; the pre-video, pre-test, and
control groups listened to the second part of the history of radio recording. The pre-test group
listened to the mindfulness induction for the final audio clip while the pre-video, pre-PEI, and
control groups listened to the third part of the history of radio audio clip. The pre-video and pretest groups did not receive one chunk of the audio (e.g. the pre-video group did not hear the first
10-minute section but heard the second and third chunks), but this method was chosen to
maintain consistency between groups. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
22
Results
Assumptions
Homogeneity of variance was examined using Levene’s test. The endorsement of original
video only, F(2, 298) = 0.99, p = .394, and endorsement of foils F(2, 298) = .36, p = .779, were
not significant which indicates there was homogeneity of variances. However, endorsement of
post-event information only, F(2, 298) = 2.79, p = .041, and endorsement of original video and
post-event information, F(2, 298) = 2.82, p = .039, were significant which indicates they lacked
homogeneity of variance. To examine normality, skewness and kurtosis were examined and
revealed that endorsement of original video and post-event information was not normally
distributed. Data were not transformed because the sample size was large and the group sizes
were relatively equal therefore the ANOVA tests should still be robust in spite of the violations.
However, because some of the assumptions of the ANOVA were not met, all analyses should be
interpreted with caution.
Mindfulness Manipulation Check (Hypothesis 1)
Each participant completed three separate TMS questionnaires. To ensure mindfulness
scores were higher immediately after mindfulness induction compared to after the control task, I
used the TMS questionnaire that was completed immediately after the mindfulness induction and
compared it to the control TMS scores from the same time. I then conducted three independent
measures t-tests to determine whether TMS scores were higher immediately after the
mindfulness induction compared to control. Results confirm that participants who received the
mindfulness before the original video (the Pre-video condition) had significantly higher TMS
scores (M = 3.34, SD = 0.57) than participants in the control group (M = 2.94, SD = 0.60), t(150)
= 4.23, p < .001, d = 0.69. Participants who received the mindfulness before the post-event
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
23
information (the Pre-PEI condition) had significantly higher TMS scores (M = 3.37, SD = 0.78)
than participants in the control group (M = 3.02, SD = 0.59), t(147) = 3.06, p = .003, d = 0.50.
Participants who received the mindfulness before the test (the Pre-test condition) had marginally
significantly higher TMS scores (M = 3.29, SD = 0.87) than participants in the control group (M
= 3.04, SD = 0.70), t(148) = 1.90, p = .059, d = 0.31. The results indicated that participants’
mindfulness scores were higher after the mindfulness induction compared to control in two of the
three comparisons so my first hypothesis was partially supported.
Misinformation Manipulation Check (Hypothesis 2)
To ensure my stimuli produced the standard misinformation effect, I examined the
endorsement ratings of true items, misinformation items, and foil items. I conducted a repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining endorsement rates across statement types.
Results revealed that there was a significant difference in the endorsements of statement types
F(3, 903) = 825.75, p < .001, η2 = .97. Pairwise LSD comparisons indicated that there are
significant differences between all comparisons, all ps < .001. The mean endorsement ratings of
each statement type are shown in Table 1. These results supported my second hypothesis.
Mindfulness on Magnitude of Misinformation Effect (Hypothesis 3)
To examine the magnitude of the misinformation effect, I subtracted foil endorsement
rates from misinformation rates to yield a misinformation magnitude. I then compared the
misinformation magnitude across conditions. A one-way ANOVA indicated there was not a
significant difference between conditions, F(3, 298) = 1.24, p = .295, η2 = .01. Planned
comparisons tests revealed there were no significant differences between conditions. The mean
magnitude of the misinformation effect across conditions is shown in Figure 2. The data did not
support my third hypothesis.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
24
Mindfulness on Endorsement of True Items (Hypothesis 4)
To examine the endorsement of true items I compared statements true in original video
only across conditions. I also compared statements true in both the original video and post-event
information across conditions. A one-way ANOVA on endorsement rates of statements true in
the original video only revealed no significant differences between conditions, F(3, 298) = 1.12,
p = .341, η2 = .01. Another one-way ANOVA on endorsement rates of statements true in both
the original video and post-event information indicated there was not a significant difference
between conditions, F(3, 298) = 0.90, p = .443, η2 = .01. No planned comparisons were
significant in either analysis. Mean endorsement ratings for item type across conditions are
shown in Table 1. These results did not support my fourth hypothesis.
Sensitivity
Two exploratory signal detection analyses were conducted. The first signal detection
measure was A’, which was based on the calculations of Snodgrass and Corwin (1988). A’
calculates the participant’s ability to discriminate between presented items (hits) and nonpresented misinformation items. The possible range of scores for A’ is 0 to 1, with scores closer
to 1 indicating greater sensitivity (discrimination). Measuring sensitivity is important to
understand how well participants can separate their memory for the original video and their
memory for the post-event information. A one-way ANOVA indicated that A’ scores did not
significantly differ across conditions, F(3, 298) = 2.14, p = .095, η2 = .02. Mean A’ scores for
the four conditions are shown in Figure 3.
Response Bias
The second exploratory signal detection measure was B’’D which is a measure of
response bias. B’’D was based on the calculations of Donaldson (1992). The possible range of
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
25
scores is -1 to 1 with negative scores indicating a liberal bias (responding true more often than
one should) and positive scores indicating a conservative bias (responding true less often than
one should). This measure is useful in determining if the participant had any liberal or
conservative response patterns (responding “true” more or less likely than they should). A oneway ANOVA on B” D scores indicated there was no significant difference between conditions,
F(3, 298) = 0.43 p = .734, η2 =.00. Mean B” D scores for the four conditions are shown in Figure
4.
Discussion
The current study examined the effects of mindfulness meditation on the endorsement of
true and false statements in the misinformation paradigm. Four hypotheses were tested as well
as two exploratory signal detection analyses. The first two hypotheses were manipulation checks
for stimuli while the third and fourth hypotheses examined the effect of mindfulness on
endorsement of true and false statements.
The first hypothesis was a manipulation check for the mindfulness induction--I predicted
that mindfulness scores would be higher immediately after mindfulness induction compared to
after the control task. I used the mean TMS scores immediately after the mindfulness induction
compared to mean TMS scores in the control condition at the same point in the study. The
results of two TMS scores compared to control were statistically different and the third was
marginally different compared to control. This indicated that participants were more mindful
after the mindfulness induction than after the history of radio recording with the exception of
participants who received the mindfulness induction prior to the memory test. This means the
mindfulness manipulation was successful in two of three conditions and participants in those
conditions were more mindful after receiving the mindfulness induction.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
26
Hypothesis 2 was the misinformation stimuli manipulation check--I predicted that true
items would be endorsed more frequently than misinformation items and foil items will be
endorsed the least. Endorsement ratings for each type of item followed this pattern. This
indicated that participants endorsed true items the most and foil items the least, which suggests
the misinformation stimuli produced the standard misinformation effect.
The third hypothesis was that the magnitude of the misinformation effect would be
highest in the pre-PEI group, followed by the control, the pre-test, and the pre-video groups,
respectively. To analyze this, I calculated the magnitude of misinformation and compared it
across conditions. The results were not significant which did support my hypothesis. This
indicates that there was not an effect of mindfulness on the magnitude of misinformation.
My final hypothesis was that the endorsement of true items would be similar in pre-video
and pre-PEI groups and would be higher than the pre-test and control groups. To calculate this, I
compared true statements in the original video only and true statements in both the original video
and post-event information. The results indicated that there was no significant effect of
mindfulness on endorsement of true items.
Mindfulness not having an effect on memory is contradictory to past research, which has
shown that mindfulness increases both true and false memories. One reason for this lack of
significance may be due to the length of the mindfulness induction. Most studies that examined
the effects of mindfulness on cognitive functioning utilized either long-time meditators (Lykins,
Baer, & Gottlob, 2012; Xiong & Doraiswamy, 2009) or had participants complete a multisession mindfulness based course (Jha et al., 2010; Mrazek et al. 2013; Quach et al., 2016). The
brief mindfulness induction used in the current study lasted only 10-minutes. Although the
induction was long enough to effect the mindfulness groups immediately after the mindfulness
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
27
induction (compared to the control group), we do not know how long the effects of the
mindfulness carried over. It is possible that the benefits of the mindfulness did not last through
the original video, post-event information, or the memory test (depending on the condition). If
participants had completed a multi-session mindfulness course, the effects of the mindfulness
may have lasted longer and, therefore, may have had an effect on susceptibility to
misinformation.
Although this is the first study examining the effects of a mindfulness induction on
susceptibility to misinformation, there have been a few studies examining the effects of
mindfulness on susceptibility to other types of false memories (Rosenstreich, 2016; Wilson et al.,
2015). Those studies found that mindfulness increased false memories, which is inconsistent
with my findings. One possible reason for these conflicting results is that DRM effects and
misinformation effects are unrelated and therefore susceptibility to them is unrelated. For
example, Wilkinson and Hyman (1998) found that DRM errors were not related to imagined
childhood events. Therefore, although DRM effects and misinformation effects both seem to
stem from source monitoring errors, the sources that need to be monitored are different. In DRM
tasks, participants need to monitor the sources of both externally presented stimuli and internally
presented stimuli while in misinformation tasks, participants need to monitor two external
sources of information. Specifically, the internal source monitoring error may be due to a
spreading activation of semantic memory (Calvillo & Parong, 2016). The difference in
processing of the false memories within these two paradigms may explain why the results of the
current study are dissimilar to past mindfulness and false memory research.
Many factors have been found to influence susceptibility to misinformation. Zhu et al.,
(2010) found that acceptance of misinformation was negatively related to intelligence measures
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
28
of the Wechsler Scale. Similarly, Howard and Hong (2002) found misinformation from
interviews was negatively related to intelligence measures on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (WAIS). Working memory capacity is another factor that has been found to have a
negative relationship with susceptibility to misinformation. Calvillo (2014), Jaschinski and
Wentura (2002) and Zhu et al., (2010) all found that working memory was negatively related to
susceptibility to misinformation. There has also been research on personality factors and their
effects on susceptibility to misinformation. For example, Gudjonsson (1988) found a positive
relationship between anxiety and misinformation effect, and Howard and Hong (2002) found a
positive relationship between emotional coping strategies and misinformation effects. Past
research suggests that there are many factors that influence susceptibility to misinformation, and
it is possible that changing only one aspect (being more mindful) was not be enough to elicit a
significant effect.
There are some limitations to the current study. The first limitation is the short
mindfulness induction. Future research may want to use multiple mindfulness sessions or
mindfulness programs such as a mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR). It has been shown
that having participants complete more than one brief mindfulness induction leads to continuous
changes in both state and trait mindfulness (Kiken, Garland, Bluth, Palsson & Gaylord, 2015).
Therefore having participants complete multiple mindfulness inductions may lead to significant
findings pertaining to the misinformation effect. Another limitation was that the data were nonnormally distributed. The way in which the memory test was executed could also be a limitation.
The memory test was a 16-item true-or-false recognition test and did not include any follow-up
questions. Although this type of memory test is often used in misinformation studies, source
memory tests could also be beneficial. In source memory tests, participants are usually given
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
29
either a free recall or multiple choice recognition test then are asked to report where they
remember seeing that information (the original video or post-event information). Including this
source memory test could help to identify if the participant remembered seeing the information
or if he or she was simply guessing. While including a source memory test would not change the
results, it could provide information not obtained with a true-or-false recognition test.
The findings from this study contribute to the misinformation literature by demonstrating
that a mindfulness induction, which has been shown to affect other forms of false memories,
does not influence the misinformation effect. Studying the misinformation paradigm is
important to help understand what makes eyewitnesses more or less likely to include misleading
post-event information into their memory of the original event. Understanding what makes
people more or less prone to misinformation errors can help understand what makes
eyewitnesses more reliable. Due to the important implications the misinformation effect can
have, it is important to continue to expand research on the subject.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
30
References
Ainsworth, B., Eddershaw, R., Meron, D., Baldwin, D. S., & Garner, M. (2013). The effect of
focused attention and open monitoring meditation on attention network function in
healthy volunteers. Psychiatry Research, 210, 1226-1231.
Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation following a
focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1849-1858. doi:
10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.007
Barker, K. (2014). Mindfulness meditation: Do-it-yourself medicalization of every moment.
Social Science & Medicine, 106, 168-176. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.024
Berkowitz, S. R., Laney, C., Morris, E. K., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Pluto behaving
badly: False beliefs and their consequences. The American Journal of Psychology, 121,
643-660. doi: 10.2307/20445490
Calvillo, D. P. (2014). Individual differences in susceptibility to misinformation effects and
hindsight bias. Journal of General Psychology, 141, 393-40.
doi:10.1080/00221309.2014.954917
Calvillo, D. P., & Hawkins, W. C. (2017). Working memory capacity and the misinformation
effect: A meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Calvillo, D. P., & Parong, J. A. (2016). The misinformation effect is unrelated to the DRM effect
with and without a DRM warning. Memory, 24, 324-333. doi:
10.1080/09658211.2015.1005633
Chambers, R., Lo, B., & Allen, N. B. (2008). The impact of intensive mindfulness training on
attentional control, cognitive style, and affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 303322. doi: 10.1007/s10608-007-9119-0
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
31
Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 121, 275–277. doi:10.1037/00963445.121.3.275
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11, 19-23. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00160
English, S. M., & Nielson, K. A. (2010). Reduction of the misinformation effect by arousal
induced after learning. Cognition, 117, 237-242. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.014
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1-11. doi:
10.3758/BF03203630
Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effects of
experimentally induced mindfulness on emotional responding to film clips. Emotion, 10,
72–82. doi: 10.1037/a0017162
Gerrie, M. P., & Garry, M. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity affect
false memories for missing aspects of events. Memory, 15, 561-571. doi:
10.1080/09658210701391634
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1988). Interrogative suggestibility: Its relationship with assertiveness, socialevaluative anxiety, state anxiety and method of coping. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 27, 159–166
Hardt, O., Einarsson, E.Ö., & Nader, K. (2010). A bridge over troubled water: Reconsolidation
as a link between cognitive and neuroscientific memory research traditions. Annual
Review of Psychology, 61, 141–167. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100455
Howard, R., & Hong, N. S. (2002). Effects of coping style on interrogative suggestibility.
Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 479–485.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
32
Jaschinski, U., & Wentura, D. (2002). Misleading post-event information and working memory
capacity: An individual differences approach to eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 16, 223-231. doi: 10.1002/acp.783
Jha, A. P., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010). Examining the
protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective
experience. Emotion, 10, 54-64. doi:10.1037/a0018438
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological
Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are. New York: Hyperion.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Bleckley, M. K., & Engle, R. W., A controlled-attention view of
working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169-183.
doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.169
Kiken, L. G., Garland, E. L., Bluth, K., Palsson, O. S., & Gaylord, S. A. (2015). From a state to a
trait: Trajectories of state mindfulness in meditation during intervention predict changes
in trait mindfulness. Personality and Individual differences, 81, 41-46.
Lane, S. (2006). Dividing attention during a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 199-212. doi; 10.1002/acp.1177
Lau, M., Bishop, S., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N., Carlson, L…Carmody, J. (2006). The
Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
62, 1445-1467. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20326
Lippelt, D. P., Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Focused attention, open monitoring and
loving kindness meditation: Effects on attention, conflict monitoring, and creativity—A
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
33
review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. Retrieved from
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01083/full
Loftus, E. F. (2003). Make-believe memories. American Psychologist, 58, 867-873. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.58.11.867
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation into the human mind: A 30-year investigation into
the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12, 361-366. doi: 10.1101/lm.94705
Lloyd, M., Szani, A., Rubenstein, K., Colgary, C., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. (2016). A brief
mindfulness exercise before retrieval reduces recognition memory false alarms.
Mindfulness, 7, 606-613. doi: 10.1007/s12671-016-0495-y
Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2016). Brief mindfulness meditation reduces discrimination.
Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 34-44. doi:
10.1037/cns0000081
Lykins, E. B., Baer, R. A., & Gottlob, L. R. (2012). Performance-based tests of attention and
memory in long-term mindfulness meditators and demographically matched
nonmeditators. Cognitive Therapy And Research, 36, 103-114. doi:10.1007/s10608-0109318-y
Modern Marvels. (1997). Radio: Out of thin air. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/modern-marvels/episode-guide/radio-radio-out-of-thin-air/
Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness, and cognitive flexibility.
Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 176-186. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.12.008
Mrazek, M., Franklin, M., Phillips, D., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training
improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind
wandering. Psychological Science, 24, 776-781. doi: 10.1177/0956797612459659
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
34
Oberauer, K., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). What limits working memory
capacity? Psychological Bulletin, 142, 758-799. doi: 10.1037/bul0000046
Ortner, C., & Kilner, S. (2007). Mindfulness meditation and reduced emotional interference on a
cognitive task. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 271-283. doi: 10.1007/s11031-007-9076-7
Ost, J., Blank, H., Davies, J., Jones, G., Lambert, K., & Salmon, K. (2013). False memory ≠ false
memory: DRM errors are unrelated to the misinformation effect. PLoSOne, 8, e57939.
doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0057939.t003
Porter, S., Brinke, L. T., Riley, S. N., & Baker, A. (2014). Prime time news: The influence of
primed positive and negative emotion on susceptibility to false memories. Cognition and
Emotion, 28, 1422-1434. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.887000
Porter, S., Spencer, L. & Birt, A. (2003). Blinded by emotion? Effect of the emotionality of a
scene on susceptibility to false memories. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35,
165-175. doi: 10.1037/h0087198
Quach, D., Mano, K. J., & Alexander, K. (2015). A randomized controlled trial examining the
effect of mindfulness meditation on working memory capacity in adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 58, 489-496. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.024
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not
presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 21, 803-814. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
Rosenstreich, E. (2015). Mindfulness and false-memories: The impact of mindfulness practice on
the DRM paradigm. The Journal of Psychology, 150, 58-71. doi:
10.1080/00223980.2015.1004298
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
35
Semple, R. (2010). Does mindfulness meditation enhance attention? A randomized controlled
trial. Mindfulness, 1, 121-130. doi: 10.1007/s12671-010-0017-2
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory:
Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
117, 34 –50. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34
Takarangi, M., Parker, S., & Garry, M. (2006). Modernizing the misinformation effect: The
development of a new stimulus set. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 583-590. doi:
10.1002/acp.1209
Tang, Y., Tang, R., & Posner, M. I. (2016). Mindfulness meditation improves emotion regulation
and reduces drug abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 163, S13-S18. doi:
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.11.041
Van Damme, I., & Seynaeve, L. (2013). The effect of mood on confidence in false memories.
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 309-318. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.769440
Van Damme, I. & Smets, K. (2014). The power of emotion versus the power of suggestion:
Memory for emotional events in the misinformation paradigm. Emotion, 14, 310-320.
doi: 10.1037/a0034629
Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies:
Using false photographs to create false childhood memories. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 9, 597-603. doi:10.3758/BF03196318
Watier, N., & Dubois, M. (2016). The effects of a brief mindfulness exercise on executive
attention and recognition memory. Mindfulness, 7, 745-753. doi: 10.1007/s12671-0160514-z
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
36
Wenk-Sormaz, H. (2005). Meditation can reduce habitual responding. Alternative Therapies in
Health and Medicine, 11, 42-58.
Wilkinson, C., & Hyman, I. E. (1998). Individual differences related to two types of memory
errors: Word lists may not generalize to autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 12, S29– S46. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720
Wilson, B. M., Mickes, L., Stolarz-Fantino, S., Evrard, M., & Fantino, E. (2015). Increased
false-memory susceptibility after mindfulness meditation. Psychological Science, 26,
1567-1573. doi: 10.1177/0956797615593705
Xiong, G. L., & Doraiswamy, P. M. (2009). Does meditation enhance cognition and brain
plasticity? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1172, 63-69.
Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of
eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 20, 934.
Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1998). Processing resources and eyewitness suggestibility.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 305-320. doi: 10.1111/j.2a0448333.1998.tb00368.x
Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian, P. (2010). Mindfulness
meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training. Consciousness and
Cognition: An International Journal, 19, 597-605. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.014
Zhu, B., Chen, C. L. H., Loftus, E. F., Ling, C., He, Q., Chen, C. L. H., ... Dong, Q. (2010).
Individual differences in false memory from misinformation: Cognitive factors. Memory,
18, 543–555. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2010.487051
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
37
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Endorsement of Statement Type by Condition
OV Only
PEI Only
OV & PEI
Foil
M
95% CI
M
95% CI
M
95% CI
M
95% CI
Control
.66
[.61, .72]
.35
[.30, .41]
.94
[.92, .97]
.14
[.10, .18]
Pre-video
.65
[.60, .70]
.44
[.37, .50]
.94
[.91, .96]
.14
[.10, .18]
Pre-PEI
.64
[.59, .69]
.41
[.35, .45]
.91
[.88, .95]
.19
[.15, .24]
Pre-test
.70
[.66, .75]
.39
[.32, .46]
.94
[.91, .97]
.15
[.11, .19]
Note. OV only = statements true in original video only; PEI only = statements true in post-event
information only; OV & PEI = statements true in both original video and post-event information.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
Figure 1. Procedure of proposed study. The control group did not get the mindfulness
induction. The pre-video group received the mindfulness induction before the original event.
The pre-PEI group received the mindfulness induction before the post-event information. The
pre-test group received the mindfulness induction before the memory test.
38
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
39
Mean Magnatude of
Misinformation
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Control
Pre-video
Pre-PEI
Condition
Pre-test
Figure 2. Mean magnitude of misinformation effect across conditions. Error bars represent 95%
CI.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
40
1
Mean A' Scores
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Control
Pre-video
Pre-PEI
Condition
Pre-test
Figure 3. Mean A’ scores across conditions. Error bars represent 95% CI.
MINDFULNESS AND MISINFORMATION
41
Mean B’’D Scores
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Control
Pre-video
Pre-PEI
Condition
Pre-test
Figure 4. Mean B’’D scores across conditions. Error bars represent 95% CI.