{"title":"操纵信念在一定程度上弥补了基于模式的源监控中的元记忆期望错觉。","authors":"Marie Luisa Schaper, Ute J Bayen","doi":"10.3758/s13421-025-01757-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Metamemory illusions (i.e., false predictions of memory) are thought to arise from false a priori beliefs or from experiences made during study, such as processing fluency. The aim of the current research was to isolate the contribution of belief to metamemory by testing whether a correction of false beliefs can remedy a metamemory illusion. The authors focus on schema-based source monitoring, in which people show a metamemory expectancy illusion (e.g., Schaper et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470-496, 2019a). At study, people predict better source memory for items from expected sources (e.g., toothbrush in a bathroom), whereas actual source memory is better for items from unexpected sources (e.g., shampoo in a kitchen) or unaffected by expectations. In two source-monitoring experiments (N = 120/121), the authors tested whether the expectancy illusion could be remedied by correcting a priori belief. Participants studied items from expected and unexpected sources and made item-wise metamemory predictions about source memory. In both experiments, a manipulation to correct belief attenuated the expectancy illusion compared to a control group, but not to full remedy. Experiment 2 further revealed two distinct theoretical mechanisms underlying the partial persistence of the metamemory illusion: A partial inferential deficit, indicated by some participants failing to correct their belief, and a partial utilization deficit, indicated by participants failing to adequately use a corrected belief in metamemory judgments. The authors discuss competing influences of beliefs and experiences in metamemory judgment formation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48398,"journal":{"name":"Memory & Cognition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Manipulating belief partially remedies the metamemory expectancy illusion in schema-based source monitoring.\",\"authors\":\"Marie Luisa Schaper, Ute J Bayen\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13421-025-01757-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Metamemory illusions (i.e., false predictions of memory) are thought to arise from false a priori beliefs or from experiences made during study, such as processing fluency. The aim of the current research was to isolate the contribution of belief to metamemory by testing whether a correction of false beliefs can remedy a metamemory illusion. The authors focus on schema-based source monitoring, in which people show a metamemory expectancy illusion (e.g., Schaper et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470-496, 2019a). At study, people predict better source memory for items from expected sources (e.g., toothbrush in a bathroom), whereas actual source memory is better for items from unexpected sources (e.g., shampoo in a kitchen) or unaffected by expectations. In two source-monitoring experiments (N = 120/121), the authors tested whether the expectancy illusion could be remedied by correcting a priori belief. Participants studied items from expected and unexpected sources and made item-wise metamemory predictions about source memory. In both experiments, a manipulation to correct belief attenuated the expectancy illusion compared to a control group, but not to full remedy. Experiment 2 further revealed two distinct theoretical mechanisms underlying the partial persistence of the metamemory illusion: A partial inferential deficit, indicated by some participants failing to correct their belief, and a partial utilization deficit, indicated by participants failing to adequately use a corrected belief in metamemory judgments. The authors discuss competing influences of beliefs and experiences in metamemory judgment formation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory & Cognition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory & Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01757-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01757-2","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
摘要
元记忆幻觉(即对记忆的错误预测)被认为是由错误的先验信念或学习过程中的经验(如处理流畅性)产生的。当前研究的目的是通过测试错误信念的纠正是否能纠正元记忆错觉,来分离信念对元记忆的贡献。作者专注于基于图式的源监测,其中人们表现出元记忆期望错觉(例如,Schaper等人,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470- 496,2019a)。在研究中,人们对来自预期来源的物品(如浴室里的牙刷)的记忆记忆更好,而对于来自意外来源的物品(如厨房里的洗发水)的记忆记忆更好,或者不受预期的影响。在两个源监测实验(N = 120/121)中,作者测试了期望错觉是否可以通过纠正先验信念来纠正。参与者研究了来自预期和意外来源的项目,并对源记忆进行了基于项目的元记忆预测。在这两个实验中,与对照组相比,纠正信念的操作减轻了期望错觉,但没有完全补救。实验2进一步揭示了元记忆错觉部分持续存在的两种不同的理论机制:部分推理缺陷,表明一些参与者未能纠正他们的信念;部分利用缺陷,表明参与者未能充分使用正确的元记忆判断信念。作者讨论了信念和经验在元记忆判断形成中的相互竞争的影响。
Manipulating belief partially remedies the metamemory expectancy illusion in schema-based source monitoring.
Metamemory illusions (i.e., false predictions of memory) are thought to arise from false a priori beliefs or from experiences made during study, such as processing fluency. The aim of the current research was to isolate the contribution of belief to metamemory by testing whether a correction of false beliefs can remedy a metamemory illusion. The authors focus on schema-based source monitoring, in which people show a metamemory expectancy illusion (e.g., Schaper et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470-496, 2019a). At study, people predict better source memory for items from expected sources (e.g., toothbrush in a bathroom), whereas actual source memory is better for items from unexpected sources (e.g., shampoo in a kitchen) or unaffected by expectations. In two source-monitoring experiments (N = 120/121), the authors tested whether the expectancy illusion could be remedied by correcting a priori belief. Participants studied items from expected and unexpected sources and made item-wise metamemory predictions about source memory. In both experiments, a manipulation to correct belief attenuated the expectancy illusion compared to a control group, but not to full remedy. Experiment 2 further revealed two distinct theoretical mechanisms underlying the partial persistence of the metamemory illusion: A partial inferential deficit, indicated by some participants failing to correct their belief, and a partial utilization deficit, indicated by participants failing to adequately use a corrected belief in metamemory judgments. The authors discuss competing influences of beliefs and experiences in metamemory judgment formation.
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.