Investigating a bias account of emotional false memories using a criterion warning and force choice restrictions at retrieval.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Lauren M Cooper, Datin Shah, Imane Moucharik, Zainab Munshi
{"title":"Investigating a bias account of emotional false memories using a criterion warning and force choice restrictions at retrieval.","authors":"Lauren M Cooper, Datin Shah, Imane Moucharik, Zainab Munshi","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2024.2379824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Here, we add to the debate as to whether false recognition of emotional stimuli is more memory-based or more bias-based. Emotional false memory findings using the DRM paradigm have been marked by higher false alarms to negatively arousing compared to neutral critical lure items. Explanation for these findings has mainly focused on false memory-based accounts. However, here we address the question of whether a response bias for emotional stimuli can, at least in part, explain this phenomenon. In Experiment 1, we used a criterion warning, previously shown to increase more conservative responding and reduce false recognition. Experiment 2, we employed a two-alternative-forced choice test, which minimises the role of criterion setting. In both experiments, we compared false alarms to negative and neutral critical lures. We observed a significant decrease in false recognition rates for both negative and neutral critical lures under the conditions of forced choice restriction and criterion warning. However, despite these conditions, negative items, compared to their neutral counterparts, still consistently provoked a higher degree of false recognition. The discussion that follows presents an exploration of both memory-based accounts and criterion-setting explanations for the enhanced emotional false memory finding.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2379824","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Here, we add to the debate as to whether false recognition of emotional stimuli is more memory-based or more bias-based. Emotional false memory findings using the DRM paradigm have been marked by higher false alarms to negatively arousing compared to neutral critical lure items. Explanation for these findings has mainly focused on false memory-based accounts. However, here we address the question of whether a response bias for emotional stimuli can, at least in part, explain this phenomenon. In Experiment 1, we used a criterion warning, previously shown to increase more conservative responding and reduce false recognition. Experiment 2, we employed a two-alternative-forced choice test, which minimises the role of criterion setting. In both experiments, we compared false alarms to negative and neutral critical lures. We observed a significant decrease in false recognition rates for both negative and neutral critical lures under the conditions of forced choice restriction and criterion warning. However, despite these conditions, negative items, compared to their neutral counterparts, still consistently provoked a higher degree of false recognition. The discussion that follows presents an exploration of both memory-based accounts and criterion-setting explanations for the enhanced emotional false memory finding.

利用检索时的标准警告和强制选择限制,研究情绪性错误记忆的偏差原因。
在此,我们将对情绪刺激的错误识别是更基于记忆还是更基于偏差这一争论进行补充。使用 DRM 范式进行的情绪假记忆研究结果表明,与中性临界引诱项目相比,对负面唤醒项目的误报率更高。对这些发现的解释主要集中在基于错误记忆的描述上。然而,我们在此探讨的问题是,对情绪刺激的反应偏差是否至少可以部分解释这种现象。在实验 1 中,我们使用了标准警告,以前的研究表明,标准警告可以增加保守反应,减少错误识别。在实验 2 中,我们采用了一个双备选强迫选择测试,该测试将标准设置的作用降至最低。在这两项实验中,我们将错误警报与负面和中性临界诱饵进行了比较。我们观察到,在强制选择限制和标准警告的条件下,负面和中性临界诱饵的误报率都有明显下降。然而,尽管有这些条件,与中性诱饵相比,负面诱饵仍然始终会引起更高的错误识别率。接下来的讨论将对基于记忆的解释和标准设定的解释进行探讨,以说明情绪性错误记忆增强的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信