Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e57939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057939. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
The DRM method has proved to be a popular and powerful, if controversial, way to study 'false memories'. One reason for the controversy is that the extent to which the DRM effect generalises to other kinds of memory error has been neither satisfactorily established nor subject to much empirical attention. In the present paper we contribute data to this ongoing debate. One hundred and twenty participants took part in a standard misinformation effect experiment, in which they watched some CCTV footage, were exposed to misleading post-event information about events depicted in the footage, and then completed free recall and recognition tests. Participants also completed a DRM test as an ostensibly unrelated filler task. Despite obtaining robust misinformation and DRM effects, there were no correlations between a broad range of misinformation and DRM effect measures (mean r = -.01). This was not due to reliability issues with our measures or a lack of power. Thus DRM 'false memories' and misinformation effect 'false memories' do not appear to be equivalent.
DRM 方法已被证明是一种流行且强大的方法，如果有争议的话，也是一种研究“虚假记忆”的方法。争议的一个原因是，DRM 效应在多大程度上推广到其他类型的记忆错误，既没有得到令人满意的确立，也没有受到太多经验关注。在本文中，我们为正在进行的争论提供了数据。120 名参与者参加了一项标准的误导信息效应实验，他们观看了一些 CCTV 镜头，然后接触到有关镜头中描述事件的误导性事后信息，接着完成自由回忆和识别测试。参与者还完成了一个 DRM 测试作为表面上无关的填充任务。尽管获得了强大的误导信息和 DRM 效应，但误导信息和 DRM 效应测量之间没有相关性（平均 r=-.01）。这不是由于我们的测量方法存在可靠性问题或缺乏权力。因此，DRM“虚假记忆”和误导信息效应“虚假记忆”似乎并不等同。
