{"title":"Differences Between True and False Memories Using the Criteria-Based Content Analysis","authors":"Merle Madita Wachendörfer, 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.
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.