Marsh John E, Hughes Robert W, Sörqvist Patrik, Beaman C Philip, Jones Dylan M
School of Psychology.
Department of Psychology, University of London.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Nov;41(6):1728-40. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000121. Epub 2015 May 4.
Two experiments examined the extent to which erroneous recall blocks veridical recall using, as a vehicle for study, the disruptive impact of distractors that are semantically similar to a list of words presented for free recall. Instructing participants to avoid erroneous recall of to-be-ignored spoken distractors attenuated their recall but this did not influence the disruptive effect of those distractors on veridical recall (Experiment 1). Using an externalized output-editing procedure-whereby participants recalled all items that came to mind and identified those that were erroneous-the usual between-sequences semantic similarity effect on erroneous and veridical recall was replicated but the relationship between the rate of erroneous and veridical recall was weak (Experiment 2). The results suggest that forgetting is not due to veridical recall being blocked by similar events.
两项实验通过研究与供自由回忆呈现的单词列表语义相似的干扰项的破坏作用，考察了错误回忆阻碍真实回忆的程度。指示参与者避免对要忽略的口头干扰项进行错误回忆，这削弱了他们的回忆，但这并未影响这些干扰项对真实回忆的破坏作用（实验1）。使用一种外化的输出编辑程序——即参与者回忆所有想到的项目并识别出错误的项目——通常的序列间语义相似性对错误回忆和真实回忆的影响得到了重复，但错误回忆率与真实回忆率之间的关系较弱（实验2）。结果表明，遗忘并非由于真实回忆被相似事件所阻碍。
