Summary information

Study title

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...
Read more

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.

Related publications

Not available