真假自传体记忆的区别

Merle Madita Wachendörfer, Aileen Oeberst
{"title":"真假自传体记忆的区别","authors":"Merle Madita Wachendörfer, Aileen Oeberst","doi":"10.1027/1016-9040/a000513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Despite a number of real-life cases of false memories and various studies on the suggestion of false memories, little attention has been paid to the distinction between true and false memory reports. The present review summarizes the current state of research on comparing true and false memories. After an extensive search, n = 22 articles (24 studies) were included in the scoping review. From 70 statement characteristics, seven yielded significant differences that have been repeatedly obtained and outnumbered null results. From 61 self-evaluations, significant differences were found repeatedly and more often than null results for seven variables. However, due to substantial conceptual caveats in 18 studies, robust differences between true and false memories are documented for only six variables – three self-report measures (subjective confidence, vividness/clarity, auditory experience) and three statement characteristics (number of idea units, number of words, amount/quantity of details). Differences do not guarantee discriminability, however. Therefore, we argue that reliable and valid indicators for forensic practice may not be derived. Instead, we put forward several recommendations for future research, which is urgently needed.","PeriodicalId":507579,"journal":{"name":"European Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences Between True and False Autobiographical Memories\",\"authors\":\"Merle Madita Wachendörfer, Aileen Oeberst\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1016-9040/a000513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: Despite a number of real-life cases of false memories and various studies on the suggestion of false memories, little attention has been paid to the distinction between true and false memory reports. The present review summarizes the current state of research on comparing true and false memories. After an extensive search, n = 22 articles (24 studies) were included in the scoping review. From 70 statement characteristics, seven yielded significant differences that have been repeatedly obtained and outnumbered null results. From 61 self-evaluations, significant differences were found repeatedly and more often than null results for seven variables. However, due to substantial conceptual caveats in 18 studies, robust differences between true and false memories are documented for only six variables – three self-report measures (subjective confidence, vividness/clarity, auditory experience) and three statement characteristics (number of idea units, number of words, amount/quantity of details). Differences do not guarantee discriminability, however. Therefore, we argue that reliable and valid indicators for forensic practice may not be derived. Instead, we put forward several recommendations for future research, which is urgently needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Psychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:尽管现实生活中出现了许多虚假记忆的案例,也有各种关于虚假记忆暗示的研究,但很少有人关注真假记忆报告之间的区别。本综述总结了比较真假记忆的研究现状。经过广泛的搜索,n = 22 篇文章(24 项研究)被纳入范围审查。在 70 个陈述特征中,有 7 个产生了显著性差异,这些差异已被多次获得,并且多于无效结果。在 61 项自我评价中,有 7 项变量反复出现显著差异,且差异次数多于无效结果。然而,由于 18 项研究中存在大量概念上的注意事项,真假记忆之间只有 6 个变量存在显著差异,即 3 个自我报告测量变量(主观信心、生动性/清晰度、听觉体验)和 3 个陈述特征(想法单位数量、单词数量、细节数量/质量)。然而,差异并不能保证可辨别性。因此,我们认为可能无法得出可靠有效的法证实践指标。相反,我们为今后的研究提出了几项急需的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences Between True and False Autobiographical Memories
Abstract: Despite a number of real-life cases of false memories and various studies on the suggestion of false memories, little attention has been paid to the distinction between true and false memory reports. The present review summarizes the current state of research on comparing true and false memories. After an extensive search, n = 22 articles (24 studies) were included in the scoping review. From 70 statement characteristics, seven yielded significant differences that have been repeatedly obtained and outnumbered null results. From 61 self-evaluations, significant differences were found repeatedly and more often than null results for seven variables. However, due to substantial conceptual caveats in 18 studies, robust differences between true and false memories are documented for only six variables – three self-report measures (subjective confidence, vividness/clarity, auditory experience) and three statement characteristics (number of idea units, number of words, amount/quantity of details). Differences do not guarantee discriminability, however. Therefore, we argue that reliable and valid indicators for forensic practice may not be derived. Instead, we put forward several recommendations for future research, which is urgently needed.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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