Memory influenced by external factors and false memories in organizational contexts

¶ … individuals who see and later recall the same event produce markedly discrepant accounts. Aside from motivational factors (such as dishonesty) or personal differences in memory capacity there are a number of factors relevant to affecting the accuracy information recalled from long-term memory. One of the first things to consider when comparing different recollections of the same events is to consider under what conditions the respondents encoded the information which they later recalled. Important encoding conditions include the length of time the incident occurred (longer events result in more accurate recall) and any possible distracting circumstances that were present during the event that could interfere with encoding. However, perhaps the most important consideration concerns the preconceived notions of the eye of the beholder. A person encoding information that will be stored into long-term memory is not like a video camera. People view the world through preconceived notions or schema that frame and allow them to make sense of their world. One manger with a schema that the organization for which they work treats employees fair and impartially will interpret the same series of events differently than one who maintains a personal schema of a company that is unfair and looks to exploit its employees. Likewise mangers' attitudes about specific individuals will affect the accuracy of their recall. A manger that was particularly close to a terminated employee or one that resigns may tell a different story about the events surrounding that incident than one who did not like or know the same employee. Encoding of events (what information is attended to) and retrieval (how the information is recalled) of events will both be affected by these pre-existing schemata.

We also need to consider that recall from memory is a reconstructive process. Every time one recalls a past incident one recreates the memory on both cognitive and neurobiological levels. For instance, a in a recent study a false childhood memory was accepted as genuine by a third of college students who received it along with descriptions of accurate childhood events complied by their parents. The recall of this false event was intertwined with actual childhood experiences and unknowingly accepted and presented as genuine by subjects (Schultz, 2001). This new albeit false memory became a real event for these students. It is quite easy for this to happen in the current situation. When managers discuss events with other managers or with us, their recollections are open to interference by the biases of others and from their own attitudes. It is important to consider how much collaboration between managers has occurred when considering widely discrepant managerial reports of the same events.

Several additional factors are important to consider when attempting to understand the discrepancies in the managers' reports. First, we need to be careful not to assign more weight to recollections that are given with a high level of confidence as this does not appear to be associated with the accuracy of recall (Haber & Haber, 2000). Secondly, the length of time between the event and the recollection is extremely important. The longer this period of time is the less accurate recollections are and the more open recall is to interference with other related memories and from personal biases and schema. Finally, the approach with which we question these managers is extremely important to consider. Leading questions can influence recall. For example asking someone "What happened when employee x was fired" can elicit a different recollection than the question "Tell me about employee x." Using any emotionally charged words, leading questions, or casting doubt on someone's recollection ("That's not really accurate is it?") can lead to fabrications and inaccurate recalls. Asking questions in a neutral manner is extremely important (Wikipedia, 2010).

Given the above considerations there are several things that can be done to minimize inaccuracies and fabrications in the recollections of the managers: First, we need to pay particular attention to written accounts / reports of events that were recorded at the time of their occurrence or near to the time of their occurrence (within a few days). These reports can yield useful information regarding accurate records of past events and can be used in conjunction with verbal descriptions.

Next, the questioning of mangers should be undertaken on a singular basis; mangers should be interviewed one at a time and we should emphasize that they not discuss the interviews with one another. If possible, all interviews should be performed on the same day to limit coercion. If possible, managers could be allowed to review their own written reports regarding any incidents in question. This can prime more accurate recall of events. It would be interesting to compare written reports with verbal recollections in order to determine the accuracy of recall. When there are no written reports of events it is important to compare the factual accounts of different managers for discrepancies. Areas of conflicting information should be considered to be biased. When there are recollections that are discrepant we should seek to get additional information from other witnesses.