Gustafsson Philip U, Lindholm Torun, Jönsson Fredrik U
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 29;10:703. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00703. eCollection 2019.
Evaluating eyewitness testimonies has proven a difficult task. Recent research, however, suggests that incorrect memories are more effortful to retrieve than correct memories, and confidence in a memory is based on retrieval effort. We aimed to replicate and extend these findings, adding retrieval latency as a predictor of memory accuracy. Participants watched a film sequence with a staged crime and were interviewed about its content. We then analyzed retrieval effort cues in witness responses. Results showed that incorrect memories included more "effort cues" than correct memories. While correct responses were produced faster than incorrect responses, delays in responses proved a better predictor of accuracy than response latency. Furthermore, participants were more confident in correct than incorrect responses, and the effort cues partially mediated this confidence-accuracy relation. In sum, the results support previous findings of a relationship between memory accuracy and objectively verifiable cues to retrieval effort.
评估目击者证词已被证明是一项艰巨的任务。然而，最近的研究表明，错误记忆比正确记忆更难提取，对记忆的信心基于提取努力。我们旨在复制并扩展这些发现，将提取潜伏期作为记忆准确性的一个预测指标。参与者观看了一段有模拟犯罪情节的电影片段，并接受了关于其内容的访谈。然后，我们分析了证人回答中的提取努力线索。结果显示，错误记忆比正确记忆包含更多的“努力线索”。虽然正确回答比错误回答产生得更快，但回答延迟比回答潜伏期更能预测准确性。此外，参与者对正确回答比错误回答更有信心，并且努力线索部分地调节了这种信心与准确性之间的关系。总之，这些结果支持了先前关于记忆准确性与提取努力的客观可验证线索之间关系的研究发现。
