Nash Robert A, Berkowitz Shari R, Roche Simon
School of Life and Health Sciences Aston University Birmingham UK.
College of Business Administration and Public Policy California State University, Dominguez Hills Carson CA USA.
Appl Cogn Psychol. 2016 Nov-Dec;30(6):885-897. doi: 10.1002/acp.3274. Epub 2016 Sep 21.
Researchers have proposed that planting false memories could have positive behavioral consequences. The idea of deceptively planting 'beneficial' false memories outside of the laboratory raises important ethical questions, but how might the general public appraise this moral dilemma? In two studies, participants from the USA and UK read about a fictional 'false-memory therapy' that led people to adopt healthy behaviors. Participants then reported their attitudes toward the acceptability of this therapy, via scale-rating (both studies) and open-text (study 2) responses. The data revealed highly divergent responses to this contentious issue, ranging from abject horror to unqualified enthusiasm. Moreover, the responses shed light on conditions that participants believed would make the therapy less or more ethical. Whether or not deceptively planting memories outside the lab could ever be justifiable, these studies add valuable evidence to scientific and societal debates on neuroethics, whose relevance to memory science is increasingly acute.
研究人员提出,植入虚假记忆可能会产生积极的行为后果。在实验室之外欺骗性地植入“有益的”虚假记忆这一想法引发了重要的伦理问题,但公众会如何看待这一道德困境呢?在两项研究中,来自美国和英国的参与者阅读了一篇关于虚构的“虚假记忆疗法”的文章,这种疗法能引导人们养成健康的行为习惯。然后,参与者通过量表评分(两项研究)和开放式文本(研究2)回答,报告了他们对这种疗法可接受性的态度。数据显示,对于这个有争议的问题,人们的反应大相径庭,从极度恐惧到毫无保留的热情都有。此外,这些反应揭示了参与者认为会使这种疗法的伦理程度降低或提高的条件。无论在实验室之外欺骗性地植入记忆是否合理,这些研究都为关于神经伦理学的科学和社会辩论增添了有价值的证据,而神经伦理学与记忆科学的相关性正日益凸显。