Introduction.

Eyewitness narration is an important part of psychology research, especially when it comes to human memory and cognition. These studies' relevance infiltrates the legal realm, such as court proceedings and inquiries. Therefore, it is important to understand the factors that shape and influence human testimonies to determine if a person is reliable or not to testify in legal proceedings because witness testimonies have a significant pull on court proceedings. Misinformation has always been a significant problem for eyewitnesses. Sometimes, the minor information thrown at them by a law enforcer or other witness may throw a key witness off their game. For instance, a simple "Did you see a gun?" question from the police after a fact witness can influence everything a person remembers, which means a stressful experience may compromise the information accuracy in a person's brain and create a mismatch in narration details.

English and Nielson's (2010) study investigated the impacts of arousal on memory function and its consequences on misinformation effects. The author conducted an experiment where they exposed their participants to a series of videos and later asked them questions about the events from the videos and their sources. The study discovered that those participants who were induced with a series of mild threatening tasks were better able to recall the details and narrate key details of their event source. However, the study interpretation of the findings went beyond the scope of the study method and data design. The scholar argued that their findings supported source monitoring account of misinformation effects, suggesting that arousal grounded their participant's memories of the video events and later distinctly informed the questionnaire the author's interpretation was rooted in their observation that participants who were mildly induced projected better memory performance on the questionnaire than those from the controlled group.

Based on their study methodology, these scholars cannot effectively comprehend the attributes of misinformation effects without directly assessing their participant's memory. In English and Nielsen's (2010) proposal, theoretical, the arousal-induced boost in memory consolidation could have targeted source information. But practically, the scholar's study failed to leverage the memory recognition tests in the study; therefore, the study failed to provide direct proof to back up its claims. Also, without measuring the source memory, one cannot determine whether the

Design limitation.

The English and Nielsen (2010) study applied the popular forced-choice "Yes" or "No" test for memory recognition in evaluating the misinformation effect. While numerous scholars have applied this test in their studies, they have acknowledged the test limits showing a participant a target item and a foil item together and asking them to identify the target item. This test attribute may work for another aspect of English and Nielsen's (2010) study but cannot directly measure source memory, nor can it effectively perform source monitoring. This limitation of the test significance exposes this study to a range of possible alternative inferences for the observed findings, such as mere familiarity. For instance, in this study, you can assume that some participants responded to the questionnaire based on their familiarity with the items from the experiment rather than genuinely recalling their source memory. Therefore, participants' reliance on familiar items from the source to answer the questionnaire may inflate the memory evaluation accuracy.

English and Nielson (2010) applied the forced-choice recognition test in their study, assuming the limitation of this study technique in assessing source monitoring or its ability to differentiate between a person's memory performance on a questionnaire. The study may need to incorporate a task-oriented evaluation strategy when assessing its participant's ability to map memories to their sources. These tasks will need the study participants to identify whether individual information sets resonate with the first event they witnessed or identify if it is from misinformation that followed the main event. The researcher will need to give study participants a base event and subsequently provide them with misguiding information in relation to the base event. For individual items, the researcher will need to ask the participant to identify the unique source of an event and where they recall encountering it. This exercise will prompt participants to engage in source monitoring significantly, thus deep diving into their memories to differentiate the source of the base events or possibilities of the event arising from alternative sources.

The essence of the alternative approach.

English and Nielsen's (2010) work lacks an apparatus to measure source monitoring or memory source, which limits the study in assessing whether post-learning arousal boosts source information consolidation. Therefore, the proposed memory test elements can directly and effectively examine the scholar's proposed question without leaving room for further interpretation of the results. If the hypothesized study by English and Nielsen on arousal-induced boost in memory consolidation uniquely targets source information, then with this strategy, the participants of this study will demonstrate more accuracy in memory attribution to original roots than those in their neural path. Also, the researcher can gain a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms embedded in the misinformation effects of post-learning arousal. Thus, this strategy enables a deep examination of how arousal can impact memory consolidation, source retrieval and information encoding amidst misinformation.

Conclusion.

English and Nielsen's (2010) work to study the impacts of arousal memory development and its consequences on the misinformation effect. The study provides thoughtful insight into the role of memory development; the researcher's interpretations of the findings went beyond the warrant scale based on the study design and data collected. The study assumed source monitoring and human memory ability to differentiate information from different sources. The assumed measure of source monitoring is an essential part of accounting for the effects of misinformation. Therefore, while the study supported memory formation, it lacked conclusive support for source monitoring effects of misinformation. Other researchers may need to conduct a direct monitoring test study designed to study the relationship between source monitoring, misinformation effects and arousal.