Smeets Tom, Merckelbach Harald, Horselenberg Robert, Jelicic Marko
Department of Experimental Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2005 Nov;25(7):917-34. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.005.
Numerous studies claim to have shown that false memories can be easily created in the laboratory. However, a critical analysis of the methods employed in these studies indicates that many of them do not address memory in the strict sense of the word. Instead, some of these studies assess the confidence that participants have in a fictitious (childhood) event, while others pertain to false beliefs about childhood events. While it is difficult to draw precise demarcation lines, we argue that inflated confidence, false beliefs, and false memories are different phenomena. Keeping the origins of these studies in mind (i.e., people who file lawsuits on the basis of their recovered memories), we propose that a fruitful, but stringent definition of false memories would incorporate their consequences. Thus, we argue that this research domain would profit from studies looking explicitly at whether experimental manipulations intended to implant false memories have overt behavioral consequences.
许多研究声称已经表明,在实验室中可以很容易地制造出虚假记忆。然而,对这些研究中所采用方法的批判性分析表明,其中许多研究并没有从该词的严格意义上探讨记忆。相反,其中一些研究评估的是参与者对虚构(童年)事件的信心,而另一些研究则涉及对童年事件的错误信念。虽然很难划定精确的界限,但我们认为过度自信、错误信念和虚假记忆是不同的现象。考虑到这些研究的起源(即那些基于恢复的记忆提起诉讼的人),我们建议,一个富有成效但严格的虚假记忆定义应纳入其后果。因此,我们认为,该研究领域将受益于明确考察旨在植入虚假记忆的实验操作是否会产生明显行为后果的研究。