The catalogue contains study descriptions in various languages. The system searches with your search terms from study descriptions available in the language you have selected. The catalogue does not have ‘All languages’ option as due to linguistic differences this would give incomplete results. See the User Guide for more detailed information.
Metacognitive monitoring and control of eyewitness memory reports in autism 2017-2019
Creator
Maras, K, University of Bath
Study number / PID
854140 (UKDA)
10.5255/UKDA-SN-854140 (DOI)
Data access
Open
Series
Not available
Abstract
Providing eyewitness testimony involves monitoring one’s memory to provide a detailed and accurate account: reporting details likely to be accurate and withholding potentially inaccurate details. Autistic individuals reportedly experience difficulties in both retrieving episodic memories and monitoring their accuracy, which has important implications for eyewitness testimony. Thirty autistic and 33 IQ-matched typically developing (TD) participants viewed a video of a mock bank robbery followed by three phases of questions (with judgments of confidence). In Phase 1, participants freely generated the granularity of their responses (i.e., fine- or coarse-grained). In Phase 2, participants answered the same questions but provided both a fine- and a coarse-grained answer. In Phase 3, participants were instructed to maximise accuracy over informativeness by selecting one of their Phase 2 answers as their final answer. They either received the questions socially (from the experimenter) or answered them online. There were no group differences in accuracy or metacognitive monitoring, with both autistic and TD witnesses demonstrating: a) a strong preference for reporting fine-grained details at the expense of accuracy; b) improved, though still sub-optimal grain size reporting when instructed to maximise accuracy over informativeness; c) effective accuracy monitoring; and d) higher overall accuracy when questions were delivered socially. There was, however, a subtle difference in metacognitive control, with autistic witnesses performing more poorly than TD witnesses when questions were delivered socially, but not when they were delivered online. These findings contrast with evidence suggesting that autism is marked by impairments in episodic memory and metacognitive monitoring and control. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is diagnosed in around 1% of the population and presents a number of challenges to the day-to-day lives of these individuals as well as their families and...
Terminology used is generally based on DDI controlled vocabularies: Time Method, Analysis Unit, Sampling Procedure and Mode of Collection, available at CESSDA Vocabulary Service.
Methodology
Data collection period
31/08/2017 - 01/05/2019
Country
United Kingdom
Time dimension
Not available
Analysis unit
Individual
Universe
Not available
Sampling procedure
Not available
Kind of data
Numeric
Data collection mode
A total of 63 participants took part: 30 autistic adults (16 males, 14 females) and 33 age- and IQ-matched typically developed (TD) participants (7 males; 26 females). Participants were recruited mainly from the South West of England and surrounding areas, including via previous research participation, autism-related and local community Facebook groups, social and support groups, as well as via local community recruitment (including posters, magazine articles, and social media posts, and University website campaigns). All autistic participants had received a formal clinical diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder according to DSM–IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) or DSM-5 criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and confirmed this with a copy of their clinical diagnostic report. Six participants had received a clinical diagnosis but were unable to access their report and were therefore administered the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Second Edition (ADOS-2; Lord et al., 2012) to confirm their diagnoses. Participants provided their written informed consent to take part and were fully debriefed. Ethical approval was obtained from the Psychology Research Ethics Committee at the University of Bath.Participants individually viewed a video of a mock bank robbery followed by three phases of questions (with judgments of confidence). In Phase 1, participants freely generated the granularity of their responses (i.e., fine- or coarse-grained). In Phase 2, participants answered the same questions but provided both a fine- and a coarse-grained answer. In Phase 3, participants were instructed to maximise accuracy over informativeness by selecting one of their Phase 2 answers as their final answer. They either received the questions socially (from the experimenter) or answered them online.
Funding information
Grant number
ES/N001095/1
Access
Publisher
UK Data Service
Publication year
2020
Terms of data access
The Data Collection is available to any user without the requirement for registration for download/access.