People differ about other people’s memories from the real with a probability not higher than random hit. It found British psychologists, who in their study showed participants videos of people pereskakivali their false memories of the crimes and other emotional events. The inability to determine the truth did not depend on the submitted material (audio, video without audio, or both), and not helped by the fact that they knew that the memory may in fact be false. Article published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
In 2015, Julia Shaw (Julia Shaw) from University College London and her colleagues conducted a study during which tried to convince the participants false memories of the crimes they allegedly committed as teenagers. The experiment (more about it and about the phenomenon of false memories, you can read our article “All that was not me”) was successful: after 70 percent of the participants actually believed that they once committed crimes. Their retellings never happened with them stories were recorded on video.
A new study Shows used videos of previous studies in order to study how false memories look like from the side — in other words, can they, being false in reality, be credible to outside observers. The study involved 124 people: they showed a video with renderings of false memories, and then asked whether they think that the people on them are telling the truth. In the video, the participants talked about how a teenager allegedly committed crimes, armed robbery, and, for example, were losing money or being attacked by animals.
Participants correctly identified the false memories only 61.29% of cases, and false memories of crimes committed in 53.33% of cases. He and the other number is a little above casual contact, so talking about what people actually do to determine the falsity of memories, retold by others, not.
To reproduce the results and to complement the findings Show conducted an additional experiment: it was attended by 82 participants. They were divided into three groups: the first included only the audio part of the recorded video, the second group included only the video without sound, and the third — the full video with sound. The participants in this study also reported that one of the memories that they will listen to or view, is false.
Relying only on audio, the participants were able to correctly identify false memories in the 32,14% of the cases, by 45.45 percent, relying only on video, and having a complete record with the audio and video in 53.13% of the cases.
The show concluded that false memories actually look very plausible — and not just for those from whom they are formed, but also to outside observers. The reason may be that all the examples of false memories in the study differed in emotionality — and that’s why they are quite easy to believe. It is noteworthy, however, that those participants who correctly identify the false memories, are unable to accurately describe what they drew, and this reinforces the received random result.
The formation of false memories can contribute to certain external factors. For example, recently scientists found outthat more susceptible to to remember what actually was not, people are making a tetrahydrocannabinol — one of the psychoactive components of cannabis.