Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Aug;142(3):827-44. doi: 10.1037/a0030093. Epub 2012 Sep 17.
Studies of text comprehension have amply demonstrated that when reading a story, people seek to identify the causal and motivational forces that drive the interactions of characters and link events (e.g., Zwaan, Langston, & Graesser, 1995), thereby achieving explanatory coherence. In the present study we provide the first evidence that the search for explanatory coherence also plays a role in the memory errors that result from suggestive forensic interviews. Using a forced fabrication paradigm (e.g., Chrobak & Zaragoza, 2008), we conducted 3 experiments to test the hypothesis that false memory development is a function of the explanatory role these forced fabrications served (the explanatory role hypothesis). In support of this hypothesis, participants were more likely to subsequently freely report (Experiment 1) and falsely assent to (Experiment 2) their forced fabrications when they helped to provide a causal explanation for a witnessed outcome than when they did not serve this explanatory role. Participants were also less likely to report their forced fabrications when their explanatory strength had been reduced by the presence of an alternative explanation that could explain the same outcome as their fabrication (Experiment 3). These findings extend prior research on narrative and event comprehension processes by showing that the search for explanatory coherence can continue for weeks after the witnessed event is initially perceived, such that causally relevant misinformation from subsequent interviews is, over time, incorporated into memory for the earlier witnessed event.
对文本理解的研究充分表明,人们在阅读故事时,会试图识别推动角色互动和事件联系的因果和动机力量(例如,Zwaan、Langston 和 Graesser,1995),从而实现解释的连贯性。在本研究中,我们首次提供证据表明,寻找解释连贯性也在暗示性法医访谈导致的记忆错误中发挥作用。我们使用强制虚构范式(例如,Chrobak 和 Zaragoza,2008)进行了 3 项实验,以检验以下假设:错误记忆的发展是这些强制虚构所起的解释作用的函数(解释作用假设)。支持这一假设的是,当参与者帮助为目击结果提供因果解释时,他们更有可能随后自由报告(实验 1)和错误地同意(实验 2)他们的强制虚构,而当他们不发挥这种解释作用时则不然。当替代解释存在,能够解释与他们的虚构相同的结果时,参与者也不太可能报告他们的虚构(实验 3)。这些发现通过表明寻找解释连贯性可以在最初感知目击事件后的数周内继续进行,从而扩展了关于叙事和事件理解过程的先前研究,从而将随后访谈中的因果相关错误信息随着时间的推移被纳入对早期目击事件的记忆中。