解铃还须系铃人:丰富的错误记忆研究后的成功汇报。

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Memory & Cognition Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-29 DOI:10.3758/s13421-024-01524-9
Ciara M Greene, Katie M Ryan, Lisa Ballantyne, Elizabeth Barrett, Conor S Cowman, Caroline A Dawson, Charlotte Huston, Julie Maher, Gillian Murphy
{"title":"解铃还须系铃人:丰富的错误记忆研究后的成功汇报。","authors":"Ciara M Greene, Katie M Ryan, Lisa Ballantyne, Elizabeth Barrett, Conor S Cowman, Caroline A Dawson, Charlotte Huston, Julie Maher, Gillian Murphy","doi":"10.3758/s13421-024-01524-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In rich false memory studies, familial informants often provide information to support researchers in planting vivid memories of events that never occurred. The goal of the current study was to assess how effectively we can retract these false memories via debriefing - i.e., to what extent can we put participants back the way we found them? We aimed to establish (1) what proportion of participants would retain a false memory or false belief following debriefing, and (2) whether richer, more detailed memories would be more difficult to retract. Participants (N = 123) completed a false memory implantation protocol as part of a replication of the \"Lost in the Mall\" study (Loftus & Pickrell, Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725, 1995). By the end of the protocol, 14% of participants self-reported a memory for the fabricated event, and a further 52% believed it had happened. Participants were then fully debriefed, and memory and belief for the false event were assessed again. In a follow-up assessment 3 days post-debriefing, the false memory rate had dropped to 6% and false belief rates also fell precipitously to 7%. Moreover, virtually all persistent false memories were found to be nonbelieved memories, where participants no longer accepted that the fabricated event had occurred. Richer, more detailed memories were more resistant to correction, but were still mostly retracted. This study provides evidence that participants can be \"dehoaxed\", and even very convincing false memories can be retracted.</p>","PeriodicalId":48398,"journal":{"name":"Memory & Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11315748/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unringing the bell: Successful debriefing following a rich false memory study.\",\"authors\":\"Ciara M Greene, Katie M Ryan, Lisa Ballantyne, Elizabeth Barrett, Conor S Cowman, Caroline A Dawson, Charlotte Huston, Julie Maher, Gillian Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13421-024-01524-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In rich false memory studies, familial informants often provide information to support researchers in planting vivid memories of events that never occurred. The goal of the current study was to assess how effectively we can retract these false memories via debriefing - i.e., to what extent can we put participants back the way we found them? We aimed to establish (1) what proportion of participants would retain a false memory or false belief following debriefing, and (2) whether richer, more detailed memories would be more difficult to retract. Participants (N = 123) completed a false memory implantation protocol as part of a replication of the \\\"Lost in the Mall\\\" study (Loftus & Pickrell, Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725, 1995). By the end of the protocol, 14% of participants self-reported a memory for the fabricated event, and a further 52% believed it had happened. Participants were then fully debriefed, and memory and belief for the false event were assessed again. In a follow-up assessment 3 days post-debriefing, the false memory rate had dropped to 6% and false belief rates also fell precipitously to 7%. Moreover, virtually all persistent false memories were found to be nonbelieved memories, where participants no longer accepted that the fabricated event had occurred. Richer, more detailed memories were more resistant to correction, but were still mostly retracted. This study provides evidence that participants can be \\\"dehoaxed\\\", and even very convincing false memories can be retracted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory & Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11315748/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory & Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01524-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01524-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在内容丰富的虚假记忆研究中,家庭线人通常会提供信息,帮助研究人员植入从未发生过的事件的生动记忆。本研究的目的是评估我们通过汇报收回这些虚假记忆的有效程度--也就是说,我们能在多大程度上让参与者回到我们发现他们时的状态?我们的目标是确定:(1)在汇报后,有多大比例的参与者会保留错误记忆或错误信念;(2)内容更丰富、更详细的记忆是否更难收回。作为 "迷失在商场 "研究(Loftus & Pickrell,《精神病学年鉴》,25,720-725,1995 年)的一部分,参与者(N = 123)完成了虚假记忆植入协议。方案结束时,14% 的参与者自我报告了对编造事件的记忆,另有 52% 的参与者认为该事件确实发生过。随后,对参与者进行了全面汇报,并再次评估了他们对虚假事件的记忆和信念。在听取汇报 3 天后的后续评估中,虚假记忆率下降到 6%,虚假信念率也急剧下降到 7%。此外,几乎所有持续的错误记忆都是不相信的记忆,即参与者不再接受编造的事件已经发生。更丰富、更详细的记忆对纠正的抵抗力更强,但大部分仍被撤回。这项研究提供的证据表明,参与者可能会被 "欺骗",即使是非常令人信服的虚假记忆也会被收回。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Unringing the bell: Successful debriefing following a rich false memory study.

Unringing the bell: Successful debriefing following a rich false memory study.

In rich false memory studies, familial informants often provide information to support researchers in planting vivid memories of events that never occurred. The goal of the current study was to assess how effectively we can retract these false memories via debriefing - i.e., to what extent can we put participants back the way we found them? We aimed to establish (1) what proportion of participants would retain a false memory or false belief following debriefing, and (2) whether richer, more detailed memories would be more difficult to retract. Participants (N = 123) completed a false memory implantation protocol as part of a replication of the "Lost in the Mall" study (Loftus & Pickrell, Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725, 1995). By the end of the protocol, 14% of participants self-reported a memory for the fabricated event, and a further 52% believed it had happened. Participants were then fully debriefed, and memory and belief for the false event were assessed again. In a follow-up assessment 3 days post-debriefing, the false memory rate had dropped to 6% and false belief rates also fell precipitously to 7%. Moreover, virtually all persistent false memories were found to be nonbelieved memories, where participants no longer accepted that the fabricated event had occurred. Richer, more detailed memories were more resistant to correction, but were still mostly retracted. This study provides evidence that participants can be "dehoaxed", and even very convincing false memories can be retracted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Memory & Cognition
Memory & Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Memory & Cognition covers human memory and learning, conceptual processes, psycholinguistics, problem solving, thinking, decision making, and skilled performance, including relevant work in the areas of computer simulation, information processing, mathematical psychology, developmental psychology, and experimental social psychology.
×
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