This assignment has 1 parts. Scroll to the bottom to continue to the next part.
此作业有 1 个部分。滚动到底部以继续下一部分。
此作业有 1 个部分。滚动到底部以继续下一部分。
Brief article 简介文章Reduction of the misinformation effect by arousal induced after learning
减少学习后诱导的唤醒对错误信息的影响Shaun M. English 肖恩·英吉利（Shaun M.English） a , Kristy A. Nielson ， 克里斯蒂·尼尔森 a,b,c, 一、二、三、⇑a Department of Psychology and the Integrative Neuroscience Research Center, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, United States
马凯特大学心理学系和综合神经科学研究中心，密尔沃基，威斯康星州 53201-1881，美国b Imaging Research Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, United States
威斯康星医学院影像研究中心， 密尔沃基， 威斯康星州 53226， 美国c Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, United States
威斯康星医学院神经病学系，密尔沃基，威斯康星州 53226，美国a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history: 文章历史：Received 31 March 2010 收稿日期： 2010-03-31Revised 17 August 2010 2010 年 8 月 17 日修订Accepted 18 August 2010 录用日期： 2010-8-18Keywords: 关键字：Eyewitness memory 目击者记忆False memory 错误记忆Memory modulation 记忆调制Consolidation 固结Arousal 觉醒a b s t r a c tMisinformation introduced after events have already occurred causes errors in later retrie-
在事件已经发生后引入的错误信息会导致以后的检索中出现错误val. Based on literature showing that arousal induced after learning enhances delayed
瓦尔。基于文献表明，学习后诱导的觉醒增强延迟retrieval, we investigated whether post-learning arousal can reduce the misinformation
检索，我们研究了学习后唤醒是否可以减少错误信息effect. 251 participants viewed four short film clips, each followed by a retention test,
影响。251 名参与者观看了四个短片片段，每个短片都进行了保留测试，which for some participants included misinformation. Afterward, participants viewed
对于一些参与者来说，其中包括错误信息。之后，参与者查看了another film clip that was either arousing or neutral. One week later, the arousal group rec-
另一个电影剪辑，要么令人兴奋，要么中立。一周后，唤醒组重新ognized significantly more veridical details and endorsed significantly fewer misinforma-
ognified 了更多真实的细节，并认可了显着更少的错误信息。tion items 项目 than 比 the neutral 中性 group. 群。 The findings 发现 suggest 建议 that 那 arousal 觉醒 induced 诱导 after 后learning reduced source confusion, allowing participants to better retrieve accurate details
学习减少了来源混淆，使参与者能够更好地检索准确的细节and to better reject misinformation.
并更好地拒绝错误信息。Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2010 爱思唯尔 B.V.保留所有权利。1. Introduction 1. 引言Eyewitness memory has now been empirically studied
目击者的记忆现在已经得到了实证研究for more than 30 years. A primary focus of these studies
30多年来。这些研究的主要焦点has been on measuring the susceptibility of individuals
一直在测量个人的易感性to the influence of misleading information introduced after
对误导性信息的影响 引入后the original event (Loftus, 2005). The tendency of individ-
原始事件（Loftus，2005 年）。个体化趋势uals to retrieve false information that was introduced after
uals 检索之后引入的虚假信息the fact, as if it had actually occurred, is known as the ‘‘mis-
这个事实，就好像它真的发生了一样，被称为“错误-information effect” (Loftus, 2005). To date, the source mon-
信息效应“（Loftus，2005）。迄今为止，源 mon-itoring errors hypothesis (Lindsay & Johnson, 1989) has
itoring errors hypothesis （Lindsay & Johnson， 1989） 有received much empirical support as the cause of the misin-
作为错误的原因，得到了很多经验支持。formation effect (Loftus, 2005). It proposes that the sources
形成效应（Loftus，2005）。它建议来源of witnessed and misleading information become con-
目击和误导性信息成为fused, leading to the acceptance of misinformation as accu-
融合，导致接受错误信息作为rate because it is misattributed to the witnessed event.
率，因为它被错误地归因于目击事件。The misinformation effect has been manipulated in a
错误信息效应已纵variety of ways. Hypnosis has been shown to exacerbate
多种方式。催眠已被证明会加剧the misinformation effect (Scoboria, Mazzoni, Kirsch, &
错误信息效应（Scoboria、Mazzoni、Kirsch 和Milling, 2002), and various individual differences can in-
Milling，2002），各种个体差异可以crease susceptibility to it (cf. Loftus, 2005). In contrast,
折痕对它的敏感性（参见 Loftus，2005 年）。相比之下，the misinformation effect can be mildly reduced by factors
错误信息的影响可以通过多种因素温和地减少such as when response speed is self-paced vs. speeded
例如，当响应速度是自定进度与加速时(Dodson & Hege, 2005), the learning context can be rein-
（Dodson & Hege， 2005），学习情境可以被控制stated 声明 (Thomas （托马斯 & Sommers, 萨默斯， 2005), working 加工 memory 记忆capacity 能力 is large 大 (Watson, （华生， Bunting, 彩旗 Poole, 普尔 & Conway, 康 威2005), verbal 口头 contact 联系 with 跟 the interviewers 面试 官 is limited 有限(Boon （恩恩 & Baxter, 巴克斯特 2004), multi-modality 多模态 study 研究 is used 使用(Dodson & Schacter, 2001), and when the delay between
（Dodson&Schacter，2001），以及当延迟之间learning and test is short, specific types of tests are used,
学习和测试时间很短，使用特定类型的测试，or warnings or feedback is given (cf. Loftus, 2005). Alterna-
或发出警告或反馈（参见Loftus，2005）。阿尔特纳-tively, a growing memory consolidation literature demon-
Tively，一个日益增长的记忆巩固文学恶魔——strates that manipulations introduced after learning can
学习后引入的操作可以alter later retrieval for such events. To the best of our
更改此类事件的稍后检索。尽我们最大的努力knowledge, the present study is the first test of the effect
知识，本研究是效果的首次检验of arousal on of the misinformation effect.
对错误信息效应的唤醒。Newly acquired memories are highly malleable, and
新获得的记忆具有很强的延展性，并且subject to the influence of external factors that may en-
受外部因素的影响，这些因素可能hance 汉斯 or impair 损害 long-term 长期的 retention 保留 (McGaugh, （麦高， 2000;Meeter & Murre, 2004; Nielson & Powless, 2007). This
Meeter & Murre，2004 年;Nielson&Powless，2007）。这malleability is a consequence of the time required for
延展性是所需时间的结果long-term 长期的 memory 记忆 consolidation 固结 to occur. 发生。 Specifically, 具体说来newly formed episodic memory traces in the neocortex
新皮层中新形成的情景记忆痕迹0010-0277/$ - see front matter
0010-0277/$ - 见前言 Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2010 爱思唯尔 B.V.保留所有权利。doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.014
doi：10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.014⇑ Corresponding 相应 author 作者 at: Department 部门 of Psychology, 心理学 Marquette 马凯特University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, United States. Tel.: +1 414 288
大学，密尔沃基，威斯康星州 53201-1881，美国。电话： +1 414 2881796; fax: +1 414 288 5333.
1796;传真： +1 414 288 5333.E-mail address: E-mail地址： kristy.nielson@marquette.edu (K.A. Nielson).
kristy.nielson@marquette.edu（K.A.尼尔森）。Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242Contents lists available at ScienceDirectCognitionj o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / C O G N I T
减少学习后诱导的唤醒对错误信息的影响Shaun M. English 肖恩·英吉利（Shaun M.English） a , Kristy A. Nielson ， 克里斯蒂·尼尔森 a,b,c, 一、二、三、⇑a Department of Psychology and the Integrative Neuroscience Research Center, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, United States
马凯特大学心理学系和综合神经科学研究中心，密尔沃基，威斯康星州 53201-1881，美国b Imaging Research Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, United States
威斯康星医学院影像研究中心， 密尔沃基， 威斯康星州 53226， 美国c Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, United States
威斯康星医学院神经病学系，密尔沃基，威斯康星州 53226，美国a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history: 文章历史：Received 31 March 2010 收稿日期： 2010-03-31Revised 17 August 2010 2010 年 8 月 17 日修订Accepted 18 August 2010 录用日期： 2010-8-18Keywords: 关键字：Eyewitness memory 目击者记忆False memory 错误记忆Memory modulation 记忆调制Consolidation 固结Arousal 觉醒a b s t r a c tMisinformation introduced after events have already occurred causes errors in later retrie-
在事件已经发生后引入的错误信息会导致以后的检索中出现错误val. Based on literature showing that arousal induced after learning enhances delayed
瓦尔。基于文献表明，学习后诱导的觉醒增强延迟retrieval, we investigated whether post-learning arousal can reduce the misinformation
检索，我们研究了学习后唤醒是否可以减少错误信息effect. 251 participants viewed four short film clips, each followed by a retention test,
影响。251 名参与者观看了四个短片片段，每个短片都进行了保留测试，which for some participants included misinformation. Afterward, participants viewed
对于一些参与者来说，其中包括错误信息。之后，参与者查看了another film clip that was either arousing or neutral. One week later, the arousal group rec-
另一个电影剪辑，要么令人兴奋，要么中立。一周后，唤醒组重新ognized significantly more veridical details and endorsed significantly fewer misinforma-
ognified 了更多真实的细节，并认可了显着更少的错误信息。tion items 项目 than 比 the neutral 中性 group. 群。 The findings 发现 suggest 建议 that 那 arousal 觉醒 induced 诱导 after 后learning reduced source confusion, allowing participants to better retrieve accurate details
学习减少了来源混淆，使参与者能够更好地检索准确的细节and to better reject misinformation.
并更好地拒绝错误信息。Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2010 爱思唯尔 B.V.保留所有权利。1. Introduction 1. 引言Eyewitness memory has now been empirically studied
目击者的记忆现在已经得到了实证研究for more than 30 years. A primary focus of these studies
30多年来。这些研究的主要焦点has been on measuring the susceptibility of individuals
一直在测量个人的易感性to the influence of misleading information introduced after
对误导性信息的影响 引入后the original event (Loftus, 2005). The tendency of individ-
原始事件（Loftus，2005 年）。个体化趋势uals to retrieve false information that was introduced after
uals 检索之后引入的虚假信息the fact, as if it had actually occurred, is known as the ‘‘mis-
这个事实，就好像它真的发生了一样，被称为“错误-information effect” (Loftus, 2005). To date, the source mon-
信息效应“（Loftus，2005）。迄今为止，源 mon-itoring errors hypothesis (Lindsay & Johnson, 1989) has
itoring errors hypothesis （Lindsay & Johnson， 1989） 有received much empirical support as the cause of the misin-
作为错误的原因，得到了很多经验支持。formation effect (Loftus, 2005). It proposes that the sources
形成效应（Loftus，2005）。它建议来源of witnessed and misleading information become con-
目击和误导性信息成为fused, leading to the acceptance of misinformation as accu-
融合，导致接受错误信息作为rate because it is misattributed to the witnessed event.
率，因为它被错误地归因于目击事件。The misinformation effect has been manipulated in a
错误信息效应已纵variety of ways. Hypnosis has been shown to exacerbate
多种方式。催眠已被证明会加剧the misinformation effect (Scoboria, Mazzoni, Kirsch, &
错误信息效应（Scoboria、Mazzoni、Kirsch 和Milling, 2002), and various individual differences can in-
Milling，2002），各种个体差异可以crease susceptibility to it (cf. Loftus, 2005). In contrast,
折痕对它的敏感性（参见 Loftus，2005 年）。相比之下，the misinformation effect can be mildly reduced by factors
错误信息的影响可以通过多种因素温和地减少such as when response speed is self-paced vs. speeded
例如，当响应速度是自定进度与加速时(Dodson & Hege, 2005), the learning context can be rein-
（Dodson & Hege， 2005），学习情境可以被控制stated 声明 (Thomas （托马斯 & Sommers, 萨默斯， 2005), working 加工 memory 记忆capacity 能力 is large 大 (Watson, （华生， Bunting, 彩旗 Poole, 普尔 & Conway, 康 威2005), verbal 口头 contact 联系 with 跟 the interviewers 面试 官 is limited 有限(Boon （恩恩 & Baxter, 巴克斯特 2004), multi-modality 多模态 study 研究 is used 使用(Dodson & Schacter, 2001), and when the delay between
（Dodson&Schacter，2001），以及当延迟之间learning and test is short, specific types of tests are used,
学习和测试时间很短，使用特定类型的测试，or warnings or feedback is given (cf. Loftus, 2005). Alterna-
或发出警告或反馈（参见Loftus，2005）。阿尔特纳-tively, a growing memory consolidation literature demon-
Tively，一个日益增长的记忆巩固文学恶魔——strates that manipulations introduced after learning can
学习后引入的操作可以alter later retrieval for such events. To the best of our
更改此类事件的稍后检索。尽我们最大的努力knowledge, the present study is the first test of the effect
知识，本研究是效果的首次检验of arousal on of the misinformation effect.
对错误信息效应的唤醒。Newly acquired memories are highly malleable, and
新获得的记忆具有很强的延展性，并且subject to the influence of external factors that may en-
受外部因素的影响，这些因素可能hance 汉斯 or impair 损害 long-term 长期的 retention 保留 (McGaugh, （麦高， 2000;Meeter & Murre, 2004; Nielson & Powless, 2007). This
Meeter & Murre，2004 年;Nielson&Powless，2007）。这malleability is a consequence of the time required for
延展性是所需时间的结果long-term 长期的 memory 记忆 consolidation 固结 to occur. 发生。 Specifically, 具体说来newly formed episodic memory traces in the neocortex
新皮层中新形成的情景记忆痕迹0010-0277/$ - see front matter
0010-0277/$ - 见前言 Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2010 爱思唯尔 B.V.保留所有权利。doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.014
doi：10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.014⇑ Corresponding 相应 author 作者 at: Department 部门 of Psychology, 心理学 Marquette 马凯特University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, United States. Tel.: +1 414 288
大学，密尔沃基，威斯康星州 53201-1881，美国。电话： +1 414 2881796; fax: +1 414 288 5333.
1796;传真： +1 414 288 5333.E-mail address: E-mail地址： kristy.nielson@marquette.edu (K.A. Nielson).
kristy.nielson@marquette.edu（K.A.尼尔森）。Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242Contents lists available at ScienceDirectCognitionj o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / C O G N I T
are initially dependent on links within the medial temporal
最初依赖于内侧颞叶内的链接lobe, gradually becoming independent as interconnectionsbetween neocortical traces are strengthened (Dudai, 2004;McGaugh, 2000). Consolidation is a complex set of pro-cesses that unfold over time after learning, ranging fromperhaps minutes (McGaugh, 2000; Nielson & Powless,2007) to several hours or days (Revelle & Loftus, 1992;Walker, 1958), likely varying with task types and demands.Based on the memory consolidation literature in ani-mals, recent human studies have shown that physiologi-cally arousing treatments administered soon afterlearning can modulate long-term memory. Specifically,moderate arousal via muscle tension (Nielson & Jensen,1994; Nielson, Radtke, & Jensen, 1996), cold pressor stress(Cahill, Gorski, & Le, 2003), amphetamine administration(Soetens, Casaer, D’Hooge, & Hueting, 1995), and negativeand positive emotional stimuli (Nielson & Bryant, 2005;Nielson & Powless, 2007; Nielson, Yee, & Erickson, 2005)result in enhanced delayed retrieval of episodic memoryin a time-dependent manner. For example, arousal inducedvia watching a film clip shortly after learning (e.g., oral sur-gery or comedy) enhanced delayed memory for words thatwere semantically unrelated to the arousing film (Nielson& Powless, 2007; Nielson et al., 2005). Furthermore, thesurgical and comedic stimuli were equally effective to en-hance delayed word retrieval when viewed within 30 minafter learning, but a 45-min delay was ineffective (Nielson& Powless, 2007). Importantly, the effects of arousal arenot immediately apparent; perhaps 20 minutes to multipledays may be necessary to measure the modulating effectsof arousal on memory retention (Kleinsmith & Kaplan,1963; Nielson & Jensen, 1994; Nielson et al., 2005; Quevedoet al., 2003; Revelle & Loftus, 1992). The mechanisms of ac-tion of arousal effects on memory consolidation may bemulti-faceted, but the primary underlying action appearsto be modulation of the hippocampal memory system bythe amygdala, which is activated by various emotionaland arousing treatments (McGaugh, 2004).While a growing literature exists examining the effectof arousal on episodic memory, few studies have investi-gated the impact of arousal on source monitoring or falsememory. Using arousal manipulated during encoding byincorporating memoranda that were inherently arousingor arousing treatments such as exercise, a few studies haveshown that moderate emotional arousal enhances sourcemonitoring accuracy (Doerksen & Shimamura, 2001;Dutton & Carroll, 2001; Kensinger & Schacter, 2006). How-ever, only one study has examined the effect of arousal in-duced after learning on source monitoring accuracy. Itdemonstrated that participants who completed a stressfulmental task after learning had significantly enhanced latersource monitoring accuracy (Smeets et al., 2006). To ourknowledge, the effect of arousal on source monitoring orsource memory has not yet been specifically evaluated inthe context of false memory or a misinformation paradigm.The present study was designed to evaluate the effectsof arousal induced after learning on veridical retrievaland the acceptance of misinformation in an eyewitnessmemory task. A 2 (misinformation/control) 2 (arousal/neutral) between-subjects design was employed whereparticipants viewed multiple film clips that were eitherfollowed by forced-choice recognition questions that con-
其次是强制选择识别问题，这些问题包括tained multiple items of misinformation or no misinforma-tion at all (Cann & Katz, 2005; Tomes & Katz, 1997).Afterward, participants either watched a negatively arous-ing or neutral film clip. Retention was measured one weeklater to allow for memory consolidation to occur. Arousalinduced after learning was expected to enhance veridicalretention performance and reduce misinformationendorsement (i.e., false memory).2. Methods2.1. ParticipantsUndergraduate participants (n = 251, 165 female; meanage = 19.27, SD = 1.92) who received psychology coursecredit were quasi-randomly assigned to conditions; com-parable numbers of participants were assigned to the mis-information (n = 131) and control (n = 120) conditions andconcurrently to the arousal (n = 124) and neutral (n = 127)conditions, resulting in 59–66 participants per cell. All pro-cedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board.2.2. Materials and proceduresParticipants were informed that they would be partici-pating in a study concerning memory for movies. No warn-ing about impending misinformation was given. Prior topresenting film clips, subjective mood and arousal (SMA)was assessed on separate rating scales ranging from 1 (Ex-tremely Negative/Not Aroused at All) to 10 (Extremely Po-sitive/Aroused) (Nielson & Powless, 2007). Participantsthen viewed the first of four different 90-s film clipsused in previous studies that depicted action scenes (‘‘Z”,d’Argila et al., 1969; ‘‘Jack’s Back” Elwes et al., 1988;‘‘Talons of the Eagle”, Hildebrand et al., 1992; ‘‘The BigSweat”, Watkins & Lommel, 1991; cf. Cann & Katz, 2005;Tomes & Katz, 1997; Arentsen, Bock, & Nielson, unpub-lished). Immediately following the clip, a 15-item, forced-choice (yes/no) questionnaire was administered to testretention. In the misinformation condition, four of thequestions for each film were modified to contain misinfor-mation (Tomes & Katz, 1997). For each questionnaire item,participants also rated their confidence in their answers ona scale of 1 (Not Confident) to 5 (Very Confident). A 5-min setof surveys (not analyzed) was then administered to pre-clude differences in rumination. This general procedurewas repeated for each film (with order counterbalanced).Participants then completed a second SMA measure.Arousal was induced after the task using a 3-min videoclip of live-action oral surgery, while the neutral groupviewed 3-min of a PBS documentary about the link be-tween heart disease and depression (Nielson & Powless,2007; Nielson et al., 2005). These clips did not depict ac-tions or content similar to that in the earlier films. A thirdSMA measure was then administered. After a one-week de-lay, participants returned and completed an unexpected15-item yes/no recognition test for each film, in originalfilm presentation order. These assessed memory accuracy238 S.M. English, K.A. Nielson / Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242
S.M. English， K.A. Nielson / 认知 117 （2010） 237–242
最初依赖于内侧颞叶内的链接lobe, gradually becoming independent as interconnectionsbetween neocortical traces are strengthened (Dudai, 2004;McGaugh, 2000). Consolidation is a complex set of pro-cesses that unfold over time after learning, ranging fromperhaps minutes (McGaugh, 2000; Nielson & Powless,2007) to several hours or days (Revelle & Loftus, 1992;Walker, 1958), likely varying with task types and demands.Based on the memory consolidation literature in ani-mals, recent human studies have shown that physiologi-cally arousing treatments administered soon afterlearning can modulate long-term memory. Specifically,moderate arousal via muscle tension (Nielson & Jensen,1994; Nielson, Radtke, & Jensen, 1996), cold pressor stress(Cahill, Gorski, & Le, 2003), amphetamine administration(Soetens, Casaer, D’Hooge, & Hueting, 1995), and negativeand positive emotional stimuli (Nielson & Bryant, 2005;Nielson & Powless, 2007; Nielson, Yee, & Erickson, 2005)result in enhanced delayed retrieval of episodic memoryin a time-dependent manner. For example, arousal inducedvia watching a film clip shortly after learning (e.g., oral sur-gery or comedy) enhanced delayed memory for words thatwere semantically unrelated to the arousing film (Nielson& Powless, 2007; Nielson et al., 2005). Furthermore, thesurgical and comedic stimuli were equally effective to en-hance delayed word retrieval when viewed within 30 minafter learning, but a 45-min delay was ineffective (Nielson& Powless, 2007). Importantly, the effects of arousal arenot immediately apparent; perhaps 20 minutes to multipledays may be necessary to measure the modulating effectsof arousal on memory retention (Kleinsmith & Kaplan,1963; Nielson & Jensen, 1994; Nielson et al., 2005; Quevedoet al., 2003; Revelle & Loftus, 1992). The mechanisms of ac-tion of arousal effects on memory consolidation may bemulti-faceted, but the primary underlying action appearsto be modulation of the hippocampal memory system bythe amygdala, which is activated by various emotionaland arousing treatments (McGaugh, 2004).While a growing literature exists examining the effectof arousal on episodic memory, few studies have investi-gated the impact of arousal on source monitoring or falsememory. Using arousal manipulated during encoding byincorporating memoranda that were inherently arousingor arousing treatments such as exercise, a few studies haveshown that moderate emotional arousal enhances sourcemonitoring accuracy (Doerksen & Shimamura, 2001;Dutton & Carroll, 2001; Kensinger & Schacter, 2006). How-ever, only one study has examined the effect of arousal in-duced after learning on source monitoring accuracy. Itdemonstrated that participants who completed a stressfulmental task after learning had significantly enhanced latersource monitoring accuracy (Smeets et al., 2006). To ourknowledge, the effect of arousal on source monitoring orsource memory has not yet been specifically evaluated inthe context of false memory or a misinformation paradigm.The present study was designed to evaluate the effectsof arousal induced after learning on veridical retrievaland the acceptance of misinformation in an eyewitnessmemory task. A 2 (misinformation/control) 2 (arousal/neutral) between-subjects design was employed whereparticipants viewed multiple film clips that were eitherfollowed by forced-choice recognition questions that con-
其次是强制选择识别问题，这些问题包括tained multiple items of misinformation or no misinforma-tion at all (Cann & Katz, 2005; Tomes & Katz, 1997).Afterward, participants either watched a negatively arous-ing or neutral film clip. Retention was measured one weeklater to allow for memory consolidation to occur. Arousalinduced after learning was expected to enhance veridicalretention performance and reduce misinformationendorsement (i.e., false memory).2. Methods2.1. ParticipantsUndergraduate participants (n = 251, 165 female; meanage = 19.27, SD = 1.92) who received psychology coursecredit were quasi-randomly assigned to conditions; com-parable numbers of participants were assigned to the mis-information (n = 131) and control (n = 120) conditions andconcurrently to the arousal (n = 124) and neutral (n = 127)conditions, resulting in 59–66 participants per cell. All pro-cedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board.2.2. Materials and proceduresParticipants were informed that they would be partici-pating in a study concerning memory for movies. No warn-ing about impending misinformation was given. Prior topresenting film clips, subjective mood and arousal (SMA)was assessed on separate rating scales ranging from 1 (Ex-tremely Negative/Not Aroused at All) to 10 (Extremely Po-sitive/Aroused) (Nielson & Powless, 2007). Participantsthen viewed the first of four different 90-s film clipsused in previous studies that depicted action scenes (‘‘Z”,d’Argila et al., 1969; ‘‘Jack’s Back” Elwes et al., 1988;‘‘Talons of the Eagle”, Hildebrand et al., 1992; ‘‘The BigSweat”, Watkins & Lommel, 1991; cf. Cann & Katz, 2005;Tomes & Katz, 1997; Arentsen, Bock, & Nielson, unpub-lished). Immediately following the clip, a 15-item, forced-choice (yes/no) questionnaire was administered to testretention. In the misinformation condition, four of thequestions for each film were modified to contain misinfor-mation (Tomes & Katz, 1997). For each questionnaire item,participants also rated their confidence in their answers ona scale of 1 (Not Confident) to 5 (Very Confident). A 5-min setof surveys (not analyzed) was then administered to pre-clude differences in rumination. This general procedurewas repeated for each film (with order counterbalanced).Participants then completed a second SMA measure.Arousal was induced after the task using a 3-min videoclip of live-action oral surgery, while the neutral groupviewed 3-min of a PBS documentary about the link be-tween heart disease and depression (Nielson & Powless,2007; Nielson et al., 2005). These clips did not depict ac-tions or content similar to that in the earlier films. A thirdSMA measure was then administered. After a one-week de-lay, participants returned and completed an unexpected15-item yes/no recognition test for each film, in originalfilm presentation order. These assessed memory accuracy238 S.M. English, K.A. Nielson / Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242
S.M. English， K.A. Nielson / 认知 117 （2010） 237–242
(for details unique from the earlier retention test) and mis-information endorsement.3. Results3.1. Accuracy of consistent information retrievalGroup demographic and recognition accuracy data arepresented in Table 1. The participants were comparable inage and grade-point average. Immediate memory was lessaccurate in the misinformation group than in the controlgroup (F(1,246) = 22.32, p < .001, g2p = .08). The arousal par-ticipants, who had not yet been aroused, did not differ fromthe neutral participants (F(1,246) = 1.07, p = .30, g2p = .004;interaction: F(1,246) = .42, p = .51, g2p = .002). Recognitionfor the films after one week did not differ by misinformationcondition for Consistent questions not involving misinfor-mation (F(1,247) = .04, p = .85, g2p = .0001), but the arousedparticipants performed significantly better than those whosaw the neutral stimulus (F(1,247) = 4.33, p < .04, g2p = .02;interaction: F(1,247) = .27, p = .60, g2p = .001).3.2. Manipulation checksSubjective mood significantly changed across the threemeasurements (F(2,490) = 106.24, p < .001; g2p = .30) andinteracted with arousal group (F(2,490) = 11.45, p < .001;g2p = .05), such that the arousal video caused a decrease inmood compared with the neutral video (Fig. 1A). Subjec-tive arousal also significantly changed across measures(F(2,492) = 11.62, p < .001, g2p = .05), and interacted witharousal group (F(2,492) = 28.34, p < .001, g2p = .10), showinga significant increase associated with the arousal clip vs.the neutral clip (Fig. 1B). No other effects were significant(ps > .20). Arousal change (pre- to post-video) was also cor-related with recognition accuracy (Consistent questions)across the sample, r = .165, p = .009, while mood changewas not (r = .006, p = .93).3.3. Endorsement of misinformationThe rate of misinformation endorsement of all 16 itemswas higher in the misinformation group vs. the consistentgroup, as expected (F(1,247) = 59.72, p < .001, g2p = .20).There was also a lower rate of endorsement by thearoused participants as compared with those who sawthe neutral stimulus (F(1,247) = 8.19, p < .01, g2p = .03).The interaction was also significant (F(1,247) = 4.44,p < .05, g2p = .02), showing a significant difference betweenthe misinformation groups with arousal participantsendorsing less misinformation than neutral participants(p < .01; Fig. 2). Interaction results were confirmedwith Bonferroni-corrected tests: Misinformation/NeutralTable 1Group demographics and accuracy (mean (±SD)).Group Age (years) GPA (of 4.0) % Correct consistent items (1st session) % Correct consistent items (delayed)C/N (N = 61) 19.9 (2.8) 3.2 (0.5) 84.3 (5.5) 75.1 (7.5)C/A (N = 59) 19.2 (1.3) 3.2 (0.5) 84.5 (4.8) 77.3 (5.8)M/N (N = 66) 19.0 (1.8) 3.4 (0.4) 80.7 (5.7) 75.7 (6.0)M/A (N = 65) 19.0 (1.9) 3.3 (0.5) 81.8 (4.8) 77.1 (7.7)All ns All ns M: p < .01 a A: p < .05 bOthers ns Others nsConditions: C = control, M = misinformation, A = arousal, N = neutral; GPA = self-reported grade-point average; Consistent items contained no misinfor-mation, thus they evaluated only veridical retrieval from the films.a F(1,246) = 22.32, g2p = .08.b F(1,247) = 4.33, g2p = .02.Fig. 1. Mean (±SEM) subjective mood ratings (A) and subjective arousalratings (B) are depicted by each group for baseline, pre-video, and post-video measurements. Arousal participants had significantly decreasedmood and increased arousal after the manipulation compared withneutral participants.S.M. English, K.A. Nielson / Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242 239
(MN) > Misinformation/Arousal (MA) > Consistent/Neutral(CN) = Consistent/Arousal (CA), all ps < .01 except CN vs.CA, p > .10. 1 The inclusion of sex to the analysis failed toproduce any significant main effects or interactions of sex(ps from .24 to .74), although power was too limited todraw strong conclusions.Because the experimental manipulation caused subjec-tive change in mood and arousal, change scores (pre- topost-video) were regressed to determine whether eitheror both could predict total misinformation endorsement.The model was not significant in the Control condition,R = .12, F(2,116) = 0.79, p = .45. However, it was significantin the Misinformation condition, R = .23, R2 = .054,F(2,128) = 3.63, p = .03, where mood change was not a pre-dictor (p = .27), but greater arousal change predicted lessendorsement (bstd = .19, p = .035). Finally, we also identi-fied individuals as ‘‘susceptible” to misinformation if theyendorsed at least one item in each of the film clips (of 16items), as has been done in previous studies (Cann & Katz,2005; Tomes & Katz, 1997, 2000). In the Control condition,where no misinformation was given, 38.3% exhibited thispattern (45.9% neutral, 30.1% arousal, p = .08). This differedsignificantly from the misinformation condition, where64% did so (X2(1) = 16.68, p < .001), and where neutral par-ticipants exhibited a higher rate of susceptibility (72%)than arousal participants (55%; X2(1) = 4.28, p = .039).2Regression in the misinformation condition demonstrateda significant model (R = .223, F(2,128) = 3.3, p = .039) wheremood change was not predictive (p = .21), but greater arou-sal change trended toward predicting reduced susceptibilityto misinformation (bstd = .17, p = .06).3.4. ConfidenceConfidence was analyzed for consistent and misinfor-mation questions and correct and incorrect answers. Threemain effects were significant (other ps > .05). The arousalgroup was more confident than the neutral group for cor-rectly answered consistent questions (hits; F(1,247) = 6.2,p = .013, g2p = .03), and correctly answered misinformationquestions (correct rejections; F(1,247) = 4.52, p < .05,g2p = .02). Confidence was also higher in the misinformationgroup vs. the control group for erroneously answered mis-information questions (endorsements; F(1,247) = 10.41,p < .01, g2p = .04).4. DiscussionThe present study constituted the first test of the effectof arousal on of the misinformation effect. Experiencing abrief arousal stimulus after witnessing events and expo-sure to misinformation led to enhanced 1-week delayedveridical retrieval of eyewitness memory and to reducedacceptance of misinformation. These findings support ear-lier studies showing that arousal induced after learning en-hances delayed episodic memory (McGaugh, 2000; Nielson& Bryant, 2005; Nielson & Powless, 2007; Nielson et al.,2005), and extends them to show a reduction of falsememory in an eyewitness task. Importantly, the currentstudy demonstrated that greater subjective arousal changefrom baseline predicted the degree of misinformationendorsement and trended toward predicting less suscepti-bility to ‘‘habitual” misinformation endorsement.The present findings also support the literature on themisinformation effect with multiple event paradigms.The rate of misinformation endorsement was consistentwith and even slightly higher than in previous studies(Cann & Katz, 2005; Tomes & Katz, 1997), possibly becauseof the additional events and the longer interval betweenencoding and testing (Higham, 1998). Indeed, one study re-ported significantly greater misinformation endorsementusing a 1-week retention interval compared to shorterintervals (Frost, Ingraham, & Wilson, 2002).Although the present study did not directly examinesource monitoring, the results are generally consistent witha source monitoring interpretation of the misinformationeffect (Lindsay & Johnson, 1989), and further suggest thatarousal might enhance both episodic and source memory.Specifically, the arousal group had greater accuracy and re-duced misinformation endorsement than the neutralgroup, as well as increased confidence specifically forcorrectly retrieved information and correctly rejected mis-information. Thus, arousal appeared to allow for reducedsource confusion and better clarification of actual from sug-gested details. This interpretation is consistent with previ-ous results showing that arousal after learning is effectiveto enhance delayed episodic retrieval. Animal and neuroim-aging evidence indicates that this enhancement occurs dueto direct modulatory effects of the amygdala on memoryFig. 2. Mean (±SEM) percentage of misinformation items endorsed in thecontrol condition (i.e., where no is misinformation given) and in themisinformation condition, separated by arousal and neutral groups, afterthe one-week delay for the 16 misinformation items. Arousal after thetask significantly reduced misinformation endorsement in the misinfor-mation condition in both analyses. Results were comparable using onlythe 10 ‘‘effective” misinformation items.1 Only 10 of the 16 misinformation items ‘‘effectively” produced themisinformation effect (i.e., items endorsed greater than chance p < .05criterion; see Table 2). Analysis of these items was nearly identical to thefull analysis (Misinformation, F(1,247) = 104.70, p < .001, g2p = .30; Arousal,F(1,247) = 5.30, p < .025, g2p = .021; Interaction, F(1,247) = 7.73, p < .01,g2p = .03; MN > MA > CA = CN).2 Previous studies have only used ‘‘effective” misinformation items forthis purpose. Although the percentages of ‘‘susceptible” individuals differ inusing only the ‘‘effective” items (16.7% Control (16.4% Neutral, 16.9%Arousal), 36.6% Misinformation (45.5% Neutral, 27.7% Arousal)), all analysisresults were comparable.240 S.M. English, K.A. Nielson / Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242
consolidation via its influence on the hippocampal memorycircuit (McGaugh, 2004). In the current study, arousal wasinduced after the events and misinformation had occurred,supporting that arousal helped keep memory for the videoevents and later questionnaire information distinct, mostlikely by enhancing consolidation for both episodic andsource information.While our results support previous findings that confi-dence is typically a poor indicator of accuracy when misin-formation has been presented (Tomes & Katz, 2000), wealso found greater confidence for accurately retrievedinformation and accurately rejected misinformation inthe arousal group. Importantly, one prior study demon-strated enhanced source monitoring accuracy after arousalinduction (Smeets et al., 2006). Consistent with this idea,several previous studies showed an approximate averageof 10% improvement in delayed retention due to arousalinduced after learning (Nielson & Bryant, 2005; Nielson &Powless, 2007; Nielson et al., 2005). The current studydemonstrated a comparable benefit in the reduction ofmisinformation endorsement (see Fig. 2). Thus, the confi-dence and misinformation results further support theinterpretation that arousal enhanced memory consolida-tion, possibly via modulation of both episodic and sourcememory. Ideally, future studies would examine the specificeffects of arousal on source monitoring, original events,misinformation items, and the respective sources of eachitem (Cann & Katz, 2005).Kensinger (2007) suggested that emotion or arousalspecifically enhances memory for source details that have‘‘affective relevance” (p. 215) to emotional stimuli. Yet,studies typically either manipulate arousal during encod-ing or utilize arousing memoranda. A strength of the cur-rent design was that targeted the effect of arousal onmemory consolidation, eliminating effects attributable toattention or encoding. Our findings of enhanced veridicalrecollections and reduced false memory despite any lackof ‘‘affective relevance” is consistent with recent episodicmemory studies (Nielson & Bryant, 2005; Nielson &Powless, 2007; Nielson et al., 2005). Additionally, somestudies have suggested that arousal alters central ratherthan peripheral details of remembered events (e.g., Chris-tianson, 1992). In eyewitness studies, misinformationitems often involve peripheral details, which can be ofgreat importance in witness testimony. As Table 2 shows,the misinformation items herein spanned both peripheraland central details of the film events.Negative stimuli have been suggested to lead to moredetailed episodic recall, possibly due to a ‘‘systematic cog-nitive processing style” that affords greater attention tothem (Kensinger, 2007). We employed a decidedly nega-tively valenced stimulus, but it was presented after encod-ing and misinformation, when attention could not beinfluenced. Although it is possible that the negative stimu-lus was more effective than a positive stimulus would havebeen, recent studies failed to find valence differences inmemory modulation (Nielson & Powless, 2007) or falsememory (Corson & Verrier, 2007).In conclusion, the present study uniquely demonstratedthat arousal induced shortly after learning allowed betterlong-term retrieval of episodic details and also allowedbetter rejection of misinformation. The findings impor-tantly extend the literature on memory modulation to falsememory and the misinformation effect, introducing possi-ble implications for developing methods to improve resis-tance to misinformation.AcknowledgmentsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance ofTimothy J. Arentsen, Theresa Niles, Julie Riederer, MicheleSchoenleber, and Marquette University (for financialsupport).ReferencesBoon, J. C. W., & Baxter, J. S. (2004). Minimizing extraneous, interviewer-based interrogative suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology,9(2), 229–238.Cahill, L., Gorski, L., & Le, K. (2003). Enhanced human memoryconsolidation with post-learning stress: Interaction with the degreeof arousal at encoding. Learning and Memory, 10(4), 270–274.Christianson, S. Å. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of emotion and memory: Currentresearch and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Table 2Misinformation endorsement compared between groups (mean (±SEM)).Item Description Misinfo Control t (249) pBS 1 One of the robbers has long hair 0.45 (0.04) 0.32 (0.04) 2.2 .03BS 3 Robbers took two black suitcases 0.38 (0.04) 0.37 (0.04) 0.3 .81BS 5 Robber had sunglasses 0.36 (0.04) 0.48 (0.05) 1.9 .054BS 9 Presence of male bank teller 0.23 (0.04) 0.12 (0.03) 2.4 .02Z 3 Victim charged by white vehicle 0.53 (0.04) 0.43 (0.05) 1.6 .11Z 5 Three ‘‘thugs” approach the victim 0.63 (0.04) 0.43 (0.05) 3.2 <.01Z 7 Attacking ‘‘thug” holding a stick 0.30 (0.04) 0.27 (0.04) 0.6 .56Z 10 1 victim companion had clipboard 0.66 (0.04) 0.28 (0.04) 6.7 <.001ToE 2 Pick up truck was blue 0.68 (0.04) 0.52 (0.05) 2.7 <.01ToE 4 Airplane was American Airlines 0.44 (0.04) 0.48 (0.05) 0.5 .61ToE 7 Victim was carrying a purse 0.66 (0.04) 0.36 (0.04) 4.9 <.001ToE 10 Woman and child in the terminal 0.64 (0.04) 0.29 (0.04) 5.9 <.001JB 2 Color of pick up truck (brownish) 0.47 (0.04) 0.28 (0.04) 3.1 <.01JB 6 Small stool used as a weapon 0.50(0.04) 0.33 (0.04) 2.8 <.01JB 10 Guns lie on a white carpet 0.18 (0.03) 0.10 (0.03) 1.7 .09JB 13 Unmarked police car; blue lights 0.40 (0.04) 0.19 (0.04) 3.8 <.001Note: BS = The Big Sweat; Z = Z; ToE = Talons of the Eagle; JB = Jack’s Back; Misinfo = Misinformation.S.M. English, K.A. Nielson / Cognition 117 (2010) 237–242 241
This assignment has 1 parts. Scroll to the bottom to continue to the next part.
document.assignment_information ×
由于 Fri May 3, 2024 11:59 pm AEST
由于 Fri May 3， 2024 11：59 pm AEST
由于 Fri May 3， 2024 11：59 pm AEST
Assignment is in progress. You have started 0 conversations and have posted 2 follow-up answers or comments. 0 people responded to or upvoted your annotations.
分配正在进行中。您已开始 0 次对话并发布了 2 个后续答案或评论。0 人回复或点赞了您的注释。
assignment.scoring_feedback.ignore
assignment.scoring_feedback.忽略
分配正在进行中。您已开始 0 次对话并发布了 2 个后续答案或评论。0 人回复或点赞了您的注释。
assignment.scoring_feedback.忽略
Members of my group 我的小组成员 ×
You are in Group __number__ for this content.
您属于此内容的第 __number__ 组。
Iveta Bruns 伊维塔·布伦斯
Kangyu Chen 陈康宇
Huai-Li Cheng 噢
YIXIN GU 顾一欣
Saoirse Kern O'Neill 西尔莎·科恩·奥尼尔
Nicole Li 李婷婷
Kokoa Mac 它更像mac
Jiwapo Malijani 当你在国内时
Zihan MAO 毛子涵
Joshua Juan Rong Ooi
Joshua Juan Rong Ooi（约书亚胡安荣黄）
Joshua Juan Rong Ooi（约书亚胡安荣黄）
Caitlin Naomi Paulo 凯特琳·娜奥米·保罗
Luca Piffaretti 卢卡·皮法雷蒂
Amelie Sideris-Zammit 艾米莉·西德里斯-扎米特
Hiu Ching Tai Hiu Ching Tai（丘庆泰酒店）
Dyavasha Azka Taruna
Nishka Varghese
Maya Wakatsuki
Jiheng WU
Jingyu WU
Xi Xi
Emy Yang
Alicia Yaung
Qianxi ZHAO
Yijia Zhou
页面缩略图 ×
1
2
3
4
5
6
alerts.too_many_annotations
看来您还没有发布足够多的高质量评论。确保您的评论是实质性的和深思熟虑的;以下是一些示例，可帮助您撰写高质量的评论。