The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the "Jennifer Aniston Neuron"

by Rodrigo Quian Quiroga

Loftus showed different subjects a video of a traffic accident and then asked them to estimate the speed of the cars that were involved in it. But now comes the interesting part: she asked one group of subjects to estimate the speed of the cars when they hit each other; she asked another group for the speed when they collided; a third group had to estimate the cars’ speeds when they smashed into each other; with the fourth group she used the word contacted; and with the fifth, she used bumped. The surprising result was that all subjects saw the same video in the same conditions, yet those who were asked using the word smashed gave the highest speed estimates, followed by those who heard collided, bumped, hit, and, finally, contacted. Even more surprising was that, a week later, Loftus asked the same subjects if they had seen broken glass at the scene of the accident. Thirty-two percent of the subjects who heard the word smashed answered (incorrectly) that they had, while only 14 percent of those who heard the word hit did.

Important study to support why severity of language can change how media is interpreted. Journalistic integrity should include thoughtfulness about this concept.

highlight the subjectivity of eyewitnesses at trials, and how readily their testimony can be manipulated by the way in which questions are asked.

As Helmholtz and Bartlett argued, meaning is constructed by way of assumptions based on previous experience.

This theory supports the idea that a person can build an inaccurate narrative in their head. Memories can affect the accuracy of interpretation of an event thereby affecting the accuracy of the memory with respect to the real objective event. Slightly incorrect memories can, in turn, more heavily impact future related events…ultimately exacerbating just how inaccurate an internally built narrative can be.