Cantor Allison D, Marsh Elizabeth J
a Department of Psychology & Neuroscience , Duke University , Durham , NC , USA.
Memory. 2017 Feb;25(2):220-230. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2016.1152377. Epub 2016 Feb 26.
People frequently miss contradictions with stored knowledge; for example, readers often fail to notice any problem with a reference to the Atlantic as the largest ocean. Critically, such effects occur even though participants later demonstrate knowing the Pacific is the largest ocean (the Moses Illusion) [Erickson, T. D., & Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 540-551]. We investigated whether such oversights disappear when erroneous references contradict information in one's expert domain, material which likely has been encountered many times and is particularly well-known. Biology and history graduate students monitored for errors while answering biology and history questions containing erroneous presuppositions ("In what US state were the forty-niners searching for oil?"). Expertise helped: participants were less susceptible to the illusion and less likely to later reproduce errors in their expert domain. However, expertise did not eliminate the illusion, even when errors were bolded and underlined, meaning that it was unlikely that people simply skipped over errors. The results support claims that people often use heuristics to judge truth, as opposed to directly retrieving information from memory, likely because such heuristics are adaptive and often lead to the correct answer. Even experts sometimes use such shortcuts, suggesting that overlearned and accessible knowledge does not guarantee retrieval of that information.
人们经常会忽略与已存储知识的矛盾之处;例如,读者常常没有注意到将大西洋称为最大海洋存在的任何问题。关键的是,即使参与者后来证明知道太平洋才是最大的海洋(摩西错觉),这种效应依然会出现[埃里克森,T. D.,& 马特森,M. E.(1981)。从词语到意义:一种语义错觉。《言语学习与言语行为杂志》,20,540 - 551]。我们研究了在错误的引用与某人专业领域中的信息相矛盾时,这种疏忽是否会消失,而这些专业领域的信息很可能已经被多次接触且广为人知。生物和历史专业的研究生在回答包含错误预设的生物和历史问题(“四十九人淘金者在美国哪个州寻找石油?”)时,会留意其中的错误。专业知识起到了帮助作用:参与者在其专业领域中较不易受错觉影响,且之后重现错误的可能性也较小。然而,专业知识并没有消除这种错觉,即使错误被加粗和下划线标注出来也依然如此,这意味着人们不太可能只是简单地忽略了这些错误。研究结果支持了这样的观点,即人们常常使用启发式方法来判断真假,而不是直接从记忆中检索信息,这可能是因为这种启发式方法具有适应性,并且常常能得出正确答案。即使是专家有时也会使用这样的捷径,这表明过度学习且容易获取的知识并不能保证能检索到该信息。