Dodson C S, Johnson M K
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, NJ 08544-1010.
Am J Psychol. 1993 Winter;106(4):541-57.
Lindsay and Johnson (1989) and Zaragoza and Koshmider (1989) report evidence indicating that "eyewitness" subjects are much less likely to falsely claim to have seen information suggested to them verbally when they receive a source monitoring test than when they receive a recognition test requesting only identification of the seen information. The present study reports additional evidence that source misattributions are affected by the nature of the test. Intraub and Hoffman (1992) recently reported the results of a study in which subjects claimed to have seen pictures corresponding to scenes that had only been described in paragraphs they had read. With this paradigm, we found a similar effect using their test, but source confusions were reduced with a test patterned after the one used by Lindsay and Johnson. We attribute this difference in performance to the different decision criteria evoked by these two tests.
林赛和约翰逊（1989年）以及萨拉戈萨和科斯米德（1989年）报告的证据表明，在接受源监测测试时，“目击者”受试者错误声称看到向他们口头暗示的信息的可能性，比接受仅要求识别所见信息的识别测试时要小得多。本研究报告了更多证据，表明源错误归因受测试性质的影响。因特拉布和霍夫曼（1992年）最近报告了一项研究结果，在该研究中，受试者声称看到了与他们读过的段落中仅描述过的场景相对应的图片。采用这种范式，我们使用他们的测试发现了类似的效果，但采用林赛和约翰逊使用的测试模式进行的测试减少了源混淆。我们将这种表现上的差异归因于这两种测试所引发的不同决策标准。
