{"title":"The importance of truth: Joint retrieval of \"true\" and \"important\" feedback in multidimensional source memory.","authors":"Daria Ford, Marek Nieznański","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02702-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Source memory for truth is usually better than for falsity, and similar effects are observed for important compared with unimportant information. A recently found interaction between information veracity and importance indicates that people effectively prioritize encoding true information (but not false). Yet it is unclear whether the feedback about veracity and importance of the information is integrated into joint memory representation. In the following experiment, we investigated whether source memory for veracity and importance dimensions is stochastically dependent. Students (N = 82) memorized trivia statements along with their veracity and importance status, which resulted in four different combinations of sources (\"true and important\", \"true and unimportant\", \"false and important\", \"false and unimportant\"). The analysis with a multidimensional source memory multinomial model revealed that the joint retrieval of \"true\" and \"important\" feedback as compound information is better than for all other combinations. Moreover, the veracity dimension was memorized better than the importance dimension, showing that we remember whether information is true or false better than whether it is important or unimportant.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02702-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Source memory for truth is usually better than for falsity, and similar effects are observed for important compared with unimportant information. A recently found interaction between information veracity and importance indicates that people effectively prioritize encoding true information (but not false). Yet it is unclear whether the feedback about veracity and importance of the information is integrated into joint memory representation. In the following experiment, we investigated whether source memory for veracity and importance dimensions is stochastically dependent. Students (N = 82) memorized trivia statements along with their veracity and importance status, which resulted in four different combinations of sources ("true and important", "true and unimportant", "false and important", "false and unimportant"). The analysis with a multidimensional source memory multinomial model revealed that the joint retrieval of "true" and "important" feedback as compound information is better than for all other combinations. Moreover, the veracity dimension was memorized better than the importance dimension, showing that we remember whether information is true or false better than whether it is important or unimportant.
期刊介绍:
The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.