Differences Between True and False Memories Using the Criteria‐Based Content Analysis

Author:

Wachendörfer Merle Madita12ORCID,Oeberst Aileen12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Social Psychology University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany

2. Department of Psychology University of Hagen Hagen Germany

Abstract

ABSTRACTAlthough not designed for distinguishing true and false memories, several reasons argue for differences in the criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA). As, to the best of our knowledge, previous research did not ensure a comparison between true and false memories, this study sought to do so. Memory reports of 52 participants were rated employing the CBCA by two independent raters. Analyses were based on event reports rated as a memory (where participants believed that the event had occurred and reported additionally remembered details about it) or reports rated as a belief (where participants believed that the event had occurred without remembering details about it). For both samples, the CBCA total score was significantly higher for true than false reports. Exploratory discriminant analyses revealed accuracy rates of 61.3%–69.6% and additional analyses hint towards the cognitive (vs. motivational) criteria as the main drivers of the obtained differences. Further replications are needed.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3