Differences Between True and False Memories Using the Criteria-Based Content Analysis

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Applied Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1002/acp.4246
Merle Madita Wachendörfer, Aileen Oeberst
{"title":"Differences Between True and False Memories Using the Criteria-Based Content Analysis","authors":"Merle Madita Wachendörfer,&nbsp;Aileen Oeberst","doi":"10.1002/acp.4246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although not designed for distinguishing true and false memories, several reasons argue for differences in the criteria-based content analysis (CBCA). As, to the best of our knowledge, previous research did not ensure a comparison between true and false memories, this study sought to do so. Memory reports of 52 participants were rated employing the CBCA by two independent raters. Analyses were based on event reports rated as a <i>memory</i> (where participants believed that the event had occurred and reported additionally remembered details about it) or reports rated as a <i>belief</i> (where participants believed that the event had occurred without remembering details about it). For both samples, the CBCA total score was significantly higher for true than false reports. Exploratory discriminant analyses revealed accuracy rates of 61.3%–69.6% and additional analyses hint towards the cognitive (vs. motivational) criteria as the main drivers of the obtained differences. Further replications are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48281,"journal":{"name":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","volume":"38 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acp.4246","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.4246","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

Abstract

Although not designed for distinguishing true and false memories, several reasons argue for differences in the criteria-based content analysis (CBCA). As, to the best of our knowledge, previous research did not ensure a comparison between true and false memories, this study sought to do so. Memory reports of 52 participants were rated employing the CBCA by two independent raters. Analyses were based on event reports rated as a memory (where participants believed that the event had occurred and reported additionally remembered details about it) or reports rated as a belief (where participants believed that the event had occurred without remembering details about it). For both samples, the CBCA total score was significantly higher for true than false reports. Exploratory discriminant analyses revealed accuracy rates of 61.3%–69.6% and additional analyses hint towards the cognitive (vs. motivational) criteria as the main drivers of the obtained differences. Further replications are needed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用基于标准的内容分析法区分真假记忆
基于标准的内容分析(CBCA)虽然不是为了区分真假记忆而设计的,但有几个原因可以证明两者之间存在差异。据我们所知,以往的研究并未确保对真假记忆进行比较,因此本研究试图对真假记忆进行比较。52 名参与者的记忆报告由两名独立评分员采用 CBCA 进行评分。分析依据的是被评为记忆的事件报告(参与者认为事件发生过,并额外报告了有关细节)或被评为信念的报告(参与者认为事件发生过,但没有记住有关细节)。在这两个样本中,真实报告的 CBCA 总分明显高于虚假报告。探索性判别分析显示准确率在 61.3%-69.6% 之间,其他分析表明认知(与动机)标准是造成差异的主要原因。还需要进一步的重复分析。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Applied Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Applied Cognitive Psychology seeks to publish the best papers dealing with psychological analyses of memory, learning, thinking, problem solving, language, and consciousness as they occur in the real world. Applied Cognitive Psychology will publish papers on a wide variety of issues and from diverse theoretical perspectives. The journal focuses on studies of human performance and basic cognitive skills in everyday environments including, but not restricted to, studies of eyewitness memory, autobiographical memory, spatial cognition, skill training, expertise and skilled behaviour. Articles will normally combine realistic investigations of real world events with appropriate theoretical analyses and proper appraisal of practical implications.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Verbal Framing of Video and Attitudes Toward Police on Mock Jurors' Judgements of Body-Worn Camera Video Rapid Learning in Frontline Grocery Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic Does (Biasing) Nonverbal Information Deteriorate the Accuracy of the Take-the-Best Heuristic for Deception Detection? Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire Effects Domain-General Individual Differences in Visual Comparison: Generalisability and Stability of Visual Comparison Ability Re-Visited
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1