汲取记忆:元分析综述

IF 0.8 4区 心理学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1002/jip.1633
Georgina A. Maddox, Glen E. Bodner, Matthew W. Christian, Paul Williamson
{"title":"汲取记忆:元分析综述","authors":"Georgina A. Maddox, Glen E. Bodner, Matthew W. Christian, Paul Williamson","doi":"10.1002/jip.1633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing is commonly used to facilitate event recall in eyewitness and therapeutic settings. Building on Derksen and Connolly’s (2022) review, we meta‐analytically examined how drawing affects memory relative to purely verbal methods of communication (e.g. ‘talk only’ interviews). Database searches identified 36 randomised controlled trials of the effect of drawing‐based interventions on event memory (N = 2013). Our memory outcome measures were amount and accuracy of information reported, errors and confabulations. Random‐effects analysis indicated drawing was favoured relative to verbal controls across these four outcomes. Drawing enhanced the amount (g = 0.63, p < .001) and accuracy (g = 0.29, p = .014) of information reported, but did not reduce errors (g = 0.05, p = .633) or confabulations (g = 0.22, p = .488) relative to control. The memory benefits of drawing were not moderated by age (children vs. adults), event type (autobiographical vs. live/staged vs. video), control type (visual‐active vs. verbal‐only) or task timing (immediate vs. delay). Two potential moderators could not be analysed due to the paucity of studies: event focus (trauma‐related vs. non‐trauma‐related) and drawing focus (event‐focused vs. non‐event‐focused). Our meta‐analysis indicates that drawing is a valuable facilitator of event recall relative to traditional methods of communication. However, our review also highlights the need for more trauma‐specific studies. We address and offer practical recommendations for future studies to address potential risks that may result from using drawing in applied settings.","PeriodicalId":46397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drawing on memory: A meta‐analytic review\",\"authors\":\"Georgina A. Maddox, Glen E. Bodner, Matthew W. Christian, Paul Williamson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jip.1633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing is commonly used to facilitate event recall in eyewitness and therapeutic settings. Building on Derksen and Connolly’s (2022) review, we meta‐analytically examined how drawing affects memory relative to purely verbal methods of communication (e.g. ‘talk only’ interviews). Database searches identified 36 randomised controlled trials of the effect of drawing‐based interventions on event memory (N = 2013). Our memory outcome measures were amount and accuracy of information reported, errors and confabulations. Random‐effects analysis indicated drawing was favoured relative to verbal controls across these four outcomes. Drawing enhanced the amount (g = 0.63, p < .001) and accuracy (g = 0.29, p = .014) of information reported, but did not reduce errors (g = 0.05, p = .633) or confabulations (g = 0.22, p = .488) relative to control. The memory benefits of drawing were not moderated by age (children vs. adults), event type (autobiographical vs. live/staged vs. video), control type (visual‐active vs. verbal‐only) or task timing (immediate vs. delay). Two potential moderators could not be analysed due to the paucity of studies: event focus (trauma‐related vs. non‐trauma‐related) and drawing focus (event‐focused vs. non‐event‐focused). Our meta‐analysis indicates that drawing is a valuable facilitator of event recall relative to traditional methods of communication. However, our review also highlights the need for more trauma‐specific studies. We address and offer practical recommendations for future studies to address potential risks that may result from using drawing in applied settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1633\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1633","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在目击和治疗环境中,绘画通常用于促进事件回忆。以 Derksen 和 Connolly(2022 年)的综述为基础,我们对绘画相对于纯粹的语言交流方法(如 "只言片语 "访谈)如何影响记忆进行了元分析研究。通过数据库搜索,我们找到了 36 项随机对照试验,研究绘画干预对事件记忆的影响(N = 2013)。我们的记忆结果测量指标是所报告信息的数量和准确性、错误和混淆。随机效应分析表明,在这四种结果中,绘画相对于口头控制更有优势。与对照组相比,绘画提高了报告信息的数量(g = 0.63,p < .001)和准确性(g = 0.29,p = .014),但没有减少错误(g = 0.05,p = .633)或混淆(g = 0.22,p = .488)。绘画对记忆的益处不受年龄(儿童与成人)、事件类型(自传与现场/舞台与视频)、控制类型(视觉与纯语言)或任务时间(即时与延迟)的影响。由于研究较少,我们无法分析两个潜在的调节因素:事件焦点(创伤相关与非创伤相关)和绘画焦点(事件焦点与非事件焦点)。我们的荟萃分析表明,与传统的交流方式相比,绘画对事件回忆有重要的促进作用。然而,我们的综述也强调了需要更多针对创伤的研究。我们对未来的研究提出了切实可行的建议,以解决在应用环境中使用绘画可能导致的潜在风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Drawing on memory: A meta‐analytic review
Drawing is commonly used to facilitate event recall in eyewitness and therapeutic settings. Building on Derksen and Connolly’s (2022) review, we meta‐analytically examined how drawing affects memory relative to purely verbal methods of communication (e.g. ‘talk only’ interviews). Database searches identified 36 randomised controlled trials of the effect of drawing‐based interventions on event memory (N = 2013). Our memory outcome measures were amount and accuracy of information reported, errors and confabulations. Random‐effects analysis indicated drawing was favoured relative to verbal controls across these four outcomes. Drawing enhanced the amount (g = 0.63, p < .001) and accuracy (g = 0.29, p = .014) of information reported, but did not reduce errors (g = 0.05, p = .633) or confabulations (g = 0.22, p = .488) relative to control. The memory benefits of drawing were not moderated by age (children vs. adults), event type (autobiographical vs. live/staged vs. video), control type (visual‐active vs. verbal‐only) or task timing (immediate vs. delay). Two potential moderators could not be analysed due to the paucity of studies: event focus (trauma‐related vs. non‐trauma‐related) and drawing focus (event‐focused vs. non‐event‐focused). Our meta‐analysis indicates that drawing is a valuable facilitator of event recall relative to traditional methods of communication. However, our review also highlights the need for more trauma‐specific studies. We address and offer practical recommendations for future studies to address potential risks that may result from using drawing in applied settings.
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (JIP-OP) is an international journal of behavioural science contributions to criminal and civil investigations, for researchers and practitioners, also exploring the legal and jurisprudential implications of psychological and related aspects of all forms of investigation. Investigative Psychology is rapidly developing worldwide. It is a newly established, interdisciplinary area of research and application, concerned with the systematic, scientific examination of all those aspects of psychology and the related behavioural and social sciences that may be relevant to criminal.
期刊最新文献
The resister, the talker and the confessor: A closer look at suspect responses in investigative interviews Mental pathology in the field of personality and psychotic disorders, systematic review of its relationship with the commission of homicide and violent acts Cognitive interview conducted in‐person and over‐the‐phone for informants' memory of overheard conversations Issue Information The charade of discreetness: Exploring the paradoxical lifestyles of romance fraudsters
×
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