The almost unanimous false memory of the first

World Trade Center impact

Tia G. B. Hansentia@hum.aau.dkDept. of Communication

Faculty of HumanitiesAalborg University

Denmark

SARMAC VI 2005 2

Introduction

Footage of first impact was not published the first day (Pezdek, 2003)

But many claim to have seen

Greenberg (2004): Bush 2 out of 3 times

Pezdek (2003): Avr. 73% Americans

SARMAC VI 2005 3

How come

Not unprecedented Crombag et al. (1996):

El Al, 55-66% Ost et al. (2002): Diana,

20 of 45 queried

WTC impact1 differs Footage later

Ideas of how (mainly cf. Greenberg, 2004) Imagery Narrative Post-event information

Benigning Hesitates

Maligning Access to aids

SARMAC VI 2005 4

Present studies

1. Prevalence and patterns in a non-US sample2. Replication (partly)3. Collective memory examplified

Method Study 1

Re-test part of FBM study (1 day-9 months) 100 non-psych. students (65% female)

Study 2 Similar questionnaire once only (12 months) 84 psych. students (71% female)

SARMAC VI 2005 5

Event structure and visual media

First, the North Tower of WTC was hit. It could have been an accident. When the South Tower was hit as well, it became obvious that it was on purpose (terrorism). Later, the collapse of the towers greatly extended the catastrophy. There is much to suggest that visual images have a special effect. Thus, I should like to know when you first saw footage of these turning points.

 Saw the North Tower get hit:Same day at ___ o'clock or the day after at ___ o'clock or __ days after.How sure are you about that (1-7; 1=pure guess, 7=absolutely certain) Saw the South Tower get hit:Same day at ___ o'clock or the day after at ___ o'clock or __ days after.How sure are you about that (1-7; 1=pure guess, 7=absolutely certain) Saw a tower collapse:Same day at ___ o'clock or the day after at ___ o'clock or __ days after.How sure are you about that (1-7; 1=pure guess, 7=absolutely certain)

SARMAC VI 2005 6

Prevalence

Study 1 (N=100) 90% gave First-Day North time Of the remaining 10:

2 commented 4 others corrected

Study 2 (N=84) 86% gave First-Day North time Of the remaining 12 (14%):

6+ were trekking etc…

5 Missing

5 Other day

90 Same day

3 Missing

9 Other day

72 Same day

SARMAC VI 2005 7

Confidence

Study 1 First-Day vs Other-Day

answers: not less confident

Study 1, FD’s only North vs other turning-

points: higher confidence

Study 2 ditto Mean FD=5.0; OD=4.0

Study 2 ditto Mean North=4.9;

South=4.5; Collapse=4.2

N M SD Diff.

FD 88 5.3 1.533ns

OD 5 4.0 2.345

N=82 M SD Diff. from North

North 5.3 1.493

South 4.9 1.679 t(81)=4.416***

Coll. 4.5 1.723 t(81)=5.263***

SARMAC VI 2005 8

Patterns?

First-Day cases retained for further analysis For these,

reality cannot produce North confidence so what might?

SARMAC VI 2005 9

Correlates of North Confidence (N varies) Study1 Study 2

Imagery Visual image clarity (delayed) .197 -.119

Vividness (Sept 12 2001) .144 na

Vividness (delayed) .197 .105

Confidencein other answers

South (delayed) .859** .803**

Collapse (delayed) .633** .710**

Source (delayed) .257* na

Activity (delayed) .172 na

Location (delayed) .199 na

Flashbulb variables

Emotionality (Sept 12 2001) -.021 na

Emotionality (delayed) .178 .068

Surprise (Sept 12 2001) -.117 na

Surprise (delayed) .198 .019

Consequentiality (Sept 12 2001) -.228* na

Consequentiality (delayed) -.037 -.062

Rehearsal (Sept 12 2001) .062 na

Rehearsal (delayed) .170 .024

SARMAC VI 2005 10

North Confidence contributors

Study 2 Signicant model by SC x CC

accounts for 65% SC contributes 33%, CC ns

Study 1 SC x CC x source confidence x consequentiality Adj. R2=.733 F4,76=55.955, p<.001 SC contributes 51%, Source

confidence 6%, rest are ns

SARMAC VI 2005 11

Estimate types 13 possible sequences 3 account for 90% of cases in

study 1 (N=83) Ditto study 2 (93%, N=67)

Sequences Study 1 Study 2 Type

N<S<C 33.7 % 43.3 % Narrative

N=S=C 30.1 % 25.4 % Same estimate for all

N=S<C 26.5 % 23.9 % Same then narrative

All other 9.6 % 7.5 %

Estimate types

9,6%26,5%

30,1%33,7%

All otherN=S<C

SameNarrative

SARMAC VI 2005 12

Summarizing

The error is close to unanimous The (nessessarily wrong) North time is held with more

confidence than the (possibly correct) South and Collapse times

Nevertheless, North time seems to parasitize other answers, in particular South time Pattern of confidence suggest that much North confidence

derives from confidence in other parts of the memory Pattern of estimates suggest that North time is rarely

assessed by individual recollection of that specific episode component

Memory problem or lack of specific categorisation?

SARMAC VI 2005 13

Study 3

Collective memory condensed: DR-TV’s summary 11/9 2003

”De frygtelige timer i New York” (The terrifying hours in New York) © DR (Danmarks Radio)

Used at SARMAC VI with permission Translations by me

Pretty English sacrificed for synchronicity and brevity

SARMAC VI 2005 14

SARMAC VI 2005 15

Analysis

Like President Bush, journalists have access to memory aids

Nevertheless

SARMAC VI 2005 16

Error 1

The second plane is (also) reported to hit the northern tower

SARMAC VI 2005 17

Error 2

This footage is from a later speech

SARMAC VI 2005 18

Error 3

This is the North Tower collapsing

SARMAC VI 2005 19

Discussion

Interpretations other than ’memory error’ are possible Speech error + editing demands

However Indistinct North-South categories enhance risk of

errors 1 and 3 Compatible observations from other programmes

For us, this is the available information

SARMAC VI 2005 20

Discussion & conclusion Components’ reception not represented individually Imagery not required Post-event inclusion, or a South clip mistaken for North

Conclusion The assumption of having seen impact1 on the first day

is very frequent and confidently held A mistake afforded by:

insufficient specificity of categories inadvertent misinformation by media normal news processing

Confidence veridicality problem remains

Acknowledgements

Intellectual input Dan Greenberg ROCOCO group (Aarhus Uni) CPU and MÆRKK groups (Aalborg Uni)

Technical assistance Keld Ringgaard, Lea Skov Treebak, Per Mouritzen

Travel grant Obel Foundation

SARMAC VI 2005 22

smidt ud

SARMAC VI 2005 23

General discussion and conclusion

SARMAC VI 2005 24

Conclusion

The claim to have seen impact1 on the first day is very frequent and confidently held

This mistake seems seems afforded by: insufficient specificity of categories inadvertent misinformation by media

Grasping for meaning, sacrisficing details

Two general theoretical perspectives Recollection vs. temporality vs. judgment News reception vs. natural cross-modal synchronicity

SARMAC VI 2005 25

First impact

SARMAC VI 2005 26

SARMAC VI 2005 27

SARMAC VI 2005 28

SARMAC VI 2005 29

SARMAC VI 2005 30

SARMAC VI 2005 31

Conclusion

SARMAC VI 2005 32

SARMAC VI 2005 33

Study 1 First-day-group (N=90) and

other-day-group (N=5) reported equal

vividness confidence emotionality rehearsal, etc.

when providing the estimate

as well as 12/9-01

Closest candidate for a difference: Confidence in North Tower impact

time t(91)=1.84; p<.069

N M SD

FD 89 5.2 1.5

OD 4 3.8 2.6

But OD-comments (p. 7)

SARMAC VI 2005 34

Results

Alle tager fejl - figur eller tabel

SARMAC VI 2005 35

Intro / theory

Greenberg (2004): Bush 2 out of 3 Pezdek (2003): 73%

Crombag et al. (1996): El Al, 55-66% Ost et al. (2002): Diana, 20 of 45 asked

Imagery Narrative Source monitoring errors and failures

SARMAC VI 2005 36

How come

Not unprecedented Crombag et al. (1996): El Al, 55-66% Ost et al. (2002): Diana, 20 of 45 asked

WTC impact1 differs Souce monitoring error but not reality monitoring error

Ideas of why (mainly cf. Greenberg, 2004) Imagery Narrative Post-event information

SARMAC VI 2005 37

Intro / theory

Greenberg (2004): Bush 2 out of 3 Pezdek (2003): 73%

Imagery Narrative Post-event information

SARMAC VI 2005 38

Study 1 & 2

Study 1 Re-test of FBM study

(1 day-9 mts) 100 non-psych. students

(65% female)

Study 2 Once only

(12 mts) 84 psych. students

(x % female)

Questions: Error frequency and confidence? Patterns?

Method: Subset of flashbulb memory questionnaire

SARMAC VI 2005 39

Study 1

Questions: How prevalent in a foreign (to US) sample? Hints of why:

Follow the narrative? High imagery?

Method: Incl. in flashbulb study re-test after 9 mts

Original questionnaire was within 24 hours 100 non-psych. students (65% female)

SARMAC VI 2005 40

The errorPrevalence 89% gave North Tower time

on 11/9 2001 Of the remaining 11:

2 commented (missing) 1 described (missing) 4 corrected (3 OD)

Thus: Almost unanimous

t(91)=1.84; p=.069 But cf. OD-correcters

N M SD

FD 89 5.2 1.5

OD 4 3.8 2.6

Confidence

Konfidensdimsen dur ejpga. rettede data.

SARMAC VI 2005 41

Sequences

Sequences N Type

N<S<C 28 Narrative

N=S=C 25 Same estimate for all

N=S<C 22 Same then narrative

All other 8

SARMAC VI 2005 42

man kunne sætte korrelationen med syd og kollaps her

husk også at bemærke, at de 33% narrativ jo ikke er meget, givet min madding

Anatomy of the erroneous answers – answer types

Most common sequences

38,9%

27,8%

33,3%

All other estimates

Same answer for all

Following narrative

SARMAC VI 2005 43

Study 2

Aim: Replication

(Partly: early variables not available)

Method: Delay 12 months Footage questions from study 1

Embedded in questionnaire almost similar to re-test questionnaire in study 1

84 psych. students (71% female)

SARMAC VI 2005 44

The error

4,8%

9,5%

85,7%

Blank or ambiguous

Other day

Same day

Claims to have seen North Tower impact 11/9/01

5,0%

5,0%

90,0%

Blank or several ans

Other day

Yes

Prevalence 86% reported seing North

Tower impact on 11/9 2001 90% in study 1

t(77)=2.03; p<.05 FD > OD ns in study 1

N M SD

FD 71 5.0 1.8

OD 8 3.6 2.2

Confidence

SARMAC VI 2005 45

study 2

SARMAC VI 2005 46

Results

Footage errors and confidence

SARMAC VI 2005 47

Hypothesis

Stong confidence is related to …?

SARMAC VI 2005 48

Results

Confidence Confidence relateret til?

SARMAC VI 2005 49

study 1 & 2

SARMAC VI 2005 50

North Confidence ContributorsStudy 1 Regression analysis SC x CC x

source confidence x pers. conseq. x reception distinct.

Adj. R2=.737; F5,74=45.202, p<.001

SC contributes 50%, Source confidence 7 %, rest are ns.

Study 2 Signicant model by SC x CC

accounts for 65,2%. SC contributes 33%, CC ns.

SARMAC VI 2005 51

Further analysis of errors

Relative confidence Hvordan kan her være 85 når der kun var 83 før?!

Thus, pts. are more confident in

their (erroneous) time given for their first seeing the North Tower impact

than for their (possibly correct) times given for first seeing the other two turning point.

r (N=85) South Collaps

North .854** .633**

(N=85) M SD

North 5.29 1.487

South 4.85 1.687

Collapse 4.42 1.775

t(84)=4.685** t(84)=5.649**

Tia Hansen:

men dette gør jo typeopdelingen overflødig, for hvordan skulle den kunne redegøre for dette?

Skal denne slide gemmes til efter typeanalyser?

Tia Hansen:

men dette gør jo typeopdelingen overflødig, for hvordan skulle den kunne redegøre for dette?

Skal denne slide gemmes til efter typeanalyser?

SARMAC VI 2005 52

estimattyper, konfidens og korrelater Study 1 Mean NC does no differ between the three estimate types SC x source conf (hvad predikerer de to tilsammen?) x CC (og

de tre?) predikerer næsten det hele af same og same/narrativ, men kun ¼ af narrativ.

Study 2

SARMAC VI 2005 53

relativ konfidens og konk

SARMAC VI 2005 54

Relative confidence

Study 1

N = 82 M SD t

South Confidence 4.85 1.679t(81)=4.416 ***

North Confidence 5.28 1.493

t(81)=5.263 ***Collapse Confidence 4.50 1.723

Study 2

N = 67 M SD t

South Confidence 4.53 1.863t(65)=2.754 **

North Confidence 4.92 1.842

t(65)=4.224 ***Collapse Confidence 4.15 1.994

SARMAC VI 2005 55

Relative confidence

Study 1

N = 82 M SD Difference

South Confidence 4.85 1.679t(81)=4.416 ***

North Confidence 5.28 1.493

t(81)=5.263 ***Collapse Confidence 4.50 1.723

Study 2

N = 67 M SD t

South Confidence 4.53 1.863t(65)=2.754 **

North Confidence 4.92 1.842

t(65)=4.224 ***Collapse Confidence 4.15 1.994

SARMAC VI 2005 56

Further analysis of errors

Relative confidence Hvordan kan her være 85 når der kun var 83 før?!

Thus, pts. are more confident in

their (erroneous) time given for their first seeing the North Tower impact

than for their (possibly correct) times given for first seeing the other two turning point.

r (N=85) South Collaps

North .854** .633**

(N=85) M SD

North 5.29 1.487

South 4.85 1.687

Collapse 4.42 1.775

t(84)=4.685** t(84)=5.649**

SARMAC VI 2005 57

study 3

SARMAC VI 2005 58

How come

Not unprecedented Crombag et al. (1996):

El Al, 55-66% Ost et al. (2002): Diana,

20 of 45 queried

Likely reasons Imagery Narrative

WTC impact1 differs Footage later

additional possible reason: Post-event information

Greenberg observes: Benigning: Hesitates Maligning: Access to

aids

SARMAC VI 2005 59

Present study

1. Prevalence and patterns in a non-US sample

2. Replication (partly)

3. Collective memory examplified

SARMAC VI 2005 60

Study 1 & 2

Method Subset of flashbulb memory questionnaire

Study 1 Re-test part of FBM study (1 day-9 months) 100 non-psych. students (65% female)

Study 2 Similar questionnaire once only (12 months) 84 psych. students (71% female)

SARMAC VI 2005 61

ConfidenceFirst-Day vs Other-Day estimates

N M SD Difference between groups

Study 1 First-Day 88 5.3 t(91)=1.723, ns

Other-Day 5 4.0

Study 2 First-Day 71 5.0 t(78)=1.558, ns

Other-Day 9 4.0

North confidence vs South and Collapse confidence

N M SD Different from North

Study 1 North

South

Collapse

Study 2 North

South

Collapse

SARMAC VI 2005 62

Confidence

Study 1 11/9 estimates seem more

confident than Other-Day estimates, but

t(91) = 1.723, ns

Study 2 Ditto t(78) = 1.558, ns

St. 1 N M SD

FD 88 5.3 1.5

OD 5 4.0 2.3

St. 2 N M SD

FD 71 5.0 1.9

OD 9 4.0 2.3

SARMAC VI 2005 63

North Confidence contributors

Study 2 Signicant model by SC x CC

accounts for 65% SC contributes 33%, CC ns

Study 1 SC x CC x source confidence x consequentiality Adj. R2=.729 F4,79=56.949, p<.001 SC contributes 55%, Source

confidence 6%, rest are ns

SARMAC VI 2005 64

Correlates of North Time Confidence (N varies) Study1 Study 2

Imagery? Visual image clarity (delayed) .197 -.119

Vividness, reception (Sept 12 2001) .144 na

Vividness, reception (delayed) .197 .105

Confidence in other answers?

Source (delayed) .257* na

Activity (delayed) .172 na

Location (delayed) .199 na

South time (delayed) .859** .803**

Collapse time (delayed) .633** .710**

Flashbulb variables, traditional?

Emotional intensity (Sept 12 2001) -.021 na

Emotional intensity (delayed) .178 .068

Surprise (Sept 12 2001) -.117 na

Surprise (delayed) .198 .019

Pers. consequent. (Sept 12 2001) -.228* na

Pers. consequentiality (delayed) -.037 -.062

Flashbulb variables, ’ecological’?

Rehearsal (covert) (delayed) .170 .024

Reception distinct. (Sept 12 2001) -.273* na

Reception distinctivity (delayed) -.102 .238*

SARMAC VI 2005 65

Relative confidenceM SD Different from North C.

Study 1 (N=82)

North Confidence 5.28 1.493

South Confidence 4.85 1.679 t(81)=4.416 ***

Collapse Confidence 4.50 1.723 t(81)=5.263 ***

Study 2 (N=67)

North Confidence 4.92 1.842

South Confidence 4.53 1.863 t(65)=2.754 **

Collapse Confidence 4.15 1.994 t(65)=4.224 ***