Schaper Marie Luisa, Bayen Ute J
Institute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Mem Cognit. 2025 Jul 24. doi: 10.3758/s13421-025-01757-2.
Metamemory illusions (i.e., false predictions of memory) are thought to arise from false a priori beliefs or from experiences made during study, such as processing fluency. The aim of the current research was to isolate the contribution of belief to metamemory by testing whether a correction of false beliefs can remedy a metamemory illusion. The authors focus on schema-based source monitoring, in which people show a metamemory expectancy illusion (e.g., Schaper et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470-496, 2019a). At study, people predict better source memory for items from expected sources (e.g., toothbrush in a bathroom), whereas actual source memory is better for items from unexpected sources (e.g., shampoo in a kitchen) or unaffected by expectations. In two source-monitoring experiments (N = 120/121), the authors tested whether the expectancy illusion could be remedied by correcting a priori belief. Participants studied items from expected and unexpected sources and made item-wise metamemory predictions about source memory. In both experiments, a manipulation to correct belief attenuated the expectancy illusion compared to a control group, but not to full remedy. Experiment 2 further revealed two distinct theoretical mechanisms underlying the partial persistence of the metamemory illusion: A partial inferential deficit, indicated by some participants failing to correct their belief, and a partial utilization deficit, indicated by participants failing to adequately use a corrected belief in metamemory judgments. The authors discuss competing influences of beliefs and experiences in metamemory judgment formation.
元记忆错觉(即对记忆的错误预测)被认为源于先验的错误信念或学习过程中获得的经验,比如加工流畅性。当前研究的目的是通过测试纠正错误信念是否能纠正元记忆错觉,来分离信念对元记忆的影响。作者聚焦于基于图式的来源监控,在这种监控中人们会表现出元记忆预期错觉(例如,沙佩尔等人,《实验心理学杂志:学习、记忆与认知》,第45卷第3期,470 - 496页,2019年a)。在学习阶段,人们预测来自预期来源的项目(例如浴室里的牙刷)的来源记忆会更好,而实际上来自意外来源的项目(例如厨房里的洗发水)的来源记忆更好,或者不受预期影响。在两项来源监控实验(N = 120/121)中,作者测试了预期错觉是否可以通过纠正先验信念来纠正。参与者学习来自预期和意外来源的项目,并对来源记忆进行逐项目的元记忆预测。在这两项实验中,与对照组相比,纠正信念的操作减弱了预期错觉,但并未完全消除。实验2进一步揭示了元记忆错觉部分持续存在背后的两种不同理论机制:一种是部分推理缺陷,表现为一些参与者未能纠正他们的信念;另一种是部分利用缺陷,表现为参与者在元记忆判断中未能充分利用纠正后的信念。作者讨论了信念和经验在元记忆判断形成中的相互竞争影响。