The effects of false feedback on state memory distrust towards commission and omission and recognition memory errors.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2025-09-03 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.251045
Yikang Zhang, Henry Otgaar, Robert A Nash, Chunlin Li
{"title":"The effects of false feedback on state memory distrust towards commission and omission and recognition memory errors.","authors":"Yikang Zhang, Henry Otgaar, Robert A Nash, Chunlin Li","doi":"10.1098/rsos.251045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Memory distrust, the subjective appraisal of one's memory functioning, comprises two aspects: distrust over omission errors (e.g. forgetting) and distrust over commission errors (e.g. falsely remembering). Although these aspects have been studied, how they relate to memory validation (e.g. forming autobiographical beliefs) and memory reporting remains unclear. In this study, we experimentally examined how metacognitive appraisals influence memory validation and errors in memory reporting. Participants (<i>N</i> = 622, <i>M</i> <sub>age</sub> = 38.67, s.d.<sub>age</sub> = 12.23) completed a memory task where they received inaccurate feedback about a tendency to make either commission errors, omission errors or no feedback. They then performed a second recognition task. Compared to the control group, those who received feedback suggesting a tendency to make commission errors showed a shift towards a more conservative response criterion. In contrast, those who received feedback indicating a tendency to make omission errors shifted towards a more liberal criterion. However, manipulation checks did not confirm that our manipulations affected state memory distrust as expected, and we did not find sufficient evidence that the effect of feedback operated through changes in state memory distrust. Possible explanations and future directions are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":"12 9","pages":"251045"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12404800/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Memory distrust, the subjective appraisal of one's memory functioning, comprises two aspects: distrust over omission errors (e.g. forgetting) and distrust over commission errors (e.g. falsely remembering). Although these aspects have been studied, how they relate to memory validation (e.g. forming autobiographical beliefs) and memory reporting remains unclear. In this study, we experimentally examined how metacognitive appraisals influence memory validation and errors in memory reporting. Participants (N = 622, M age = 38.67, s.d.age = 12.23) completed a memory task where they received inaccurate feedback about a tendency to make either commission errors, omission errors or no feedback. They then performed a second recognition task. Compared to the control group, those who received feedback suggesting a tendency to make commission errors showed a shift towards a more conservative response criterion. In contrast, those who received feedback indicating a tendency to make omission errors shifted towards a more liberal criterion. However, manipulation checks did not confirm that our manipulations affected state memory distrust as expected, and we did not find sufficient evidence that the effect of feedback operated through changes in state memory distrust. Possible explanations and future directions are discussed.

Abstract Image

错误反馈对状态记忆不信任、认错记忆错误的影响。
记忆不信任是对一个人记忆功能的主观评价,包括两个方面:对遗漏错误(如遗忘)的不信任和对委托错误(如错误记忆)的不信任。尽管这些方面已经得到了研究,但它们与记忆验证(例如形成自传式信念)和记忆报告之间的关系尚不清楚。在这项研究中,我们通过实验研究了元认知评价如何影响记忆验证和记忆报告中的错误。参与者(N = 622,男年龄= 38.67,女年龄= 12.23)完成了一项记忆任务,他们收到了关于犯委托错误、遗漏错误或没有反馈的不准确反馈。然后,他们进行了第二项识别任务。与对照组相比,那些收到暗示有犯错倾向的反馈的人表现出更保守的反应标准。相比之下,那些收到反馈表明有犯遗漏错误倾向的人转向了更宽松的标准。然而,操作检查并没有证实我们的操作如预期的那样影响状态内存不信任,并且我们没有发现足够的证据表明反馈的影响通过状态内存不信任的变化而起作用。讨论了可能的解释和未来的方向。
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
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信