![]() ![]() Research has also focused almost entirely on assessments of one’s own false memory account, rather than assessments of someone else’s account. Most studies on false memories involve short timeframes, and false memories that are neither very complex, nor particularly emotional. However, this seems an incomplete answer to the differences between true and false memories, as research also shows that the realism of false memories depends on the method through which they were generated ( Jou and Flores, 2013). Proponents of this phenomenological line of work broadly argue that true memories feel “richer” than false ones ( Marche et al., 2010), and that false memories are “weaker” forms of true memories ( Jou and Flores, 2013). Others have argued that providing questionnaires that help people systematically examine the characteristics of their memories can slightly improve false memory detection ( Ost et al., 2002). Some researchers have argued that the phenomenology of false memories is different from true memories, advocating that participants are able to identify their own false memories if they focus on source monitoring decisions (where people think they know things from), confidence ratings, and explicit warnings about memory fallibility ( Anastasi et al., 2000). However, this hasn’t stopped researchers from continuing to look for differences, with limited success. Within this review, it was argued that there were no reliable neurophysiological, technological, or psychological ways to discern between true and false memories – and that telling the difference between true and false memories is one of the biggest challenges in memory research. These findings are likely to be of particular interest to those working in legal and criminal justice settings.Ĭan people tell whether a particular memory is true or false? In a review of the literature, researchers have pointed out that there are two ways of looking at this question – “focusing on the memories reported or the person reporting the memories” ( Bernstein and Loftus, 2009, p. This research provides evidence that naïve judges are not able to reliably identify false memories of emotional or criminal events, or differentiate true from false memories. False memories were classified correctly by 32.14% of the audio-only group, 45.45% of the video-only group, and 53.13% of the audio-visual group. In study 2, participants ( n = 82) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, where they only had access to the (i) audio account of the memory with no video, (ii) video account with no audio, or (iii) the full audio-visual accounts. In study 1, participants ( n = 124) were no better than chance at accurately classifying false memories (61.29% accurate), or false memories of committing crime (53.33% accurate). ![]() ![]() The false memories in the videos either involved committing a crime (assault, or assault with a weapon) or other highly emotional events (animal attack, or losing a large sum of money) during adolescence. These videos were filmed during a study which involved implanting rich false memories ( Shaw and Porter, 2015). Each participant in both studies was presented with two videos, one of a person recalling a true emotional memory, and one of the same person recalling a false memory. Two studies examined whether people could identify rich false memories. Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |