1. Remembering Why: Can People Consistently Recall Reasons for Their Behaviors?
Erin K. Morris, Suzanne O. Kaasa, & Elizabeth F. Loftus
Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine
Background
The current research was inspired by a copyright-
infringement trial, in which rap singer Eminem was accused
of reproducing French jazz composer Jacques Loussier’s
music in his song “Kill You,” featured on “The Marshall
Mathers LP.” The defense commissioned a survey in
which mall-goers were asked if they had purchased the CD
in question, which had been released three years prior.
Among other things, buyers were asked if they had
purchased the CD for any particular reasons, and for any
particular songs. Only a small percent of respondents
reported purchasing the CD for the song in question, and
so the defense claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to no
more than that percent of the profits. However, is that a
reasonable way to determine damages in a trial? Perhaps
if other songs on the CD had become popular during the
three year retention interval, then survey respondents
might inaccurately remember buying the CD for those
newly popular songs, rather than for “Kill You” which was
much in the news at the time of the CD’s release. Although
well-known research demonstrates that people are often
not aware of the reasons behind their preferences (Nisbett
& Wilson, 1977) and may exhibit retrospective memory
biases for things such as event details and behaviors
(Neisser & Harsch, 1992), memory consistency for reasons
behind past behaviors has not been well explored.
Discussion
Fig 1: Reasons for Acquiring the CD
Fig 2: Memory for Specific Songs
Method
Results
There was no effect of time interval, so the 6-
month and 1-year responses were collapsed for
analysis. Reported reasons for acquiring the CD were
consistent across Time 1 and Time 2 for 21% of
participants. Thirty percent of participants displayed
forgetting in their responses, and an additional 49%
showed evidence of memory distortion (see Fig 1). Of
subjects who indicated that they acquired the CD for a
song(s), 49% were able to consistently report the
particular song(s). Twenty-seven percent at Time 2
forgot songs they listed at Time 1, and 24%
demonstrated some degree of memory distortion (See
Fig 2). In contrast, when asked the simple yes or no
question, “Did you acquire the CD for any particular
songs?,” 74.5% of participants were consistent in their
response over time. Of those who changed their
responses, the majority (63.8%) shifted from yes to no,
suggesting that they may have forgotten that specific
songs had motivated their purchase.
These results suggest that there is considerable
inconsistency in people’s memories for reasons behind
past behaviors. Problems in memory consistency are
most likely to be revealed through open-ended
questions that probe for specific details (e.g., “What
are the reasons why you acquired the CD?”), rather
than simple yes/no questions (e.g., “Did you acquire
the CD for any specific songs?”).
We found considerable inconsistency after a period
as short as 6 months, an interval far shorter than the
average time between purchase and testing in the
Eminem survey. Our findings suggest that
retrospective recollection about the reasons for a
purchase might not be a good method for acquiring
reliable data in the context of litigation.
Using the Eminem survey as a model, we asked 587
college students about the most recent CD they had
acquired (Time 1). Survey items included the reasons why
they acquired the CD, whether or not they acquired it for
specific songs, and if so, which songs. A follow-up survey
was sent to participants either six months or one year later
(Time 2), in reference to the same CD the subject had
described at Time 1.
Open-ended responses were coded for consistency
over time by two independent raters (inter-rater reliability .
64 to .95). Responses were coded into three categories:
Consistent (answers were the same at both time points),
Forgetting (a greater number of reasons or songs listed at
Time 1 than Time 2), and Memory Distortion (new or
different reasons or songs listed at Time 2 than Time 1).
Contact: skaasa@uci.edu
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Consistent Forgetting Memory
Distortion
PercentofSubjects
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Consistent Forgetting Memory
Distortion
PercentofSubjects
Neisser, U. & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections
of hearing the news about Challenger. In Winograd, E. & Neisser, U.
(Eds.) Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb” memories.
Emory symposia in cognition, 4, 9-31. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes, Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.