The effects of memory distrust toward commission and omission on recollection-belief correspondence and memory errors use asterix (*) to get italics

Yikang Zhang, Henry Otgaar, Robert A. Nash, Chunlin LiPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2024

<p>Our appraisals and beliefs about our memory functioning shape how we reconstruct and report specific memory episodes. Research has shown that people differ in the extent to which they are skeptical about their memories, which is termed memory distrust. In general, memory distrust has two aspects: distrust over forgetting (i.e., making omission errors) and distrust over falsely recollecting events that did not happen (i.e., making commission errors). Although these two aspects of memory distrust have been studied, how they are associated with memory validation (e.g., the formation of autobiographical belief) and reporting remains unclear. In the present study, we plan to examine the effect of metacognitive appraisals on the memory validation process as well as the commission and omission errors in memory reporting. Specifically, participants will first complete a memory task where they either receive false feedback regarding making commission errors or omission errors or no feedback. Then, they will complete another new recognition task. We expect that compared with the control group with no feedback, participants receiving feedback on their errors will show larger belief-recollection divergence (i.e., smaller correlations). Further, people who receive feedback indicating a tendency to make commission errors in the first memory task will make more omission errors in the second task and show a shift toward a more conservative response bias. Conversely, individuals who receive feedback suggesting a tendency to make omission errors will show an increase in commission errors during the second task, demonstrating a shift toward a more liberal response bias.&nbsp;</p>

Memory distrust, misinformation, response criterion, commission errors, omission errors

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Social sciences

Dan Wright suggested: The authors of the original paper. Also Ron Fisher., Kimberly Wade [k.a.wade@warwick.ac.uk] suggested: I am sorry to decline this invitation — I'm just too swamped for the coming months and already have a number of papers to review. I can recommend the following excellent colleagues: Giuliana Mazzoni (Sapienza), Robert Horselenberg (Maastricht), Harald Merkelbach (Maastricht), Renan Saraiva (Portsmouth), Romuald Polczyk (Jagiellonian), Linda Henkel (Fairfield). , Kimberly Wade [k.a.wade@warwick.ac.uk] suggested: best, , Kimberly Wade [k.a.wade@warwick.ac.uk] suggested: Kim Wade , Jennifer Talarico [talaricj@lafayette.edu] suggested: Ivan Mangiulli or Fabiana Battista of Maastricht University , Jennifer Talarico [talaricj@lafayette.edu] suggested: Linda Henkel of Fairfield University , Jennifer Talarico [talaricj@lafayette.edu] suggested: Rob Nash of Aston University, Renan Saraiva [renan.saraiva@port.ac.uk] suggested: lorraine hope - lorraine.hope@port.ac.uk, Lorraine Hope suggested: Apologies - I have zero bandwidth to take on this review at present. , Lorraine Hope suggested: Suggestions: , Lorraine Hope suggested: Henry Otgaar - henry.otgaar@maastrichtuniversity.nl , Lorraine Hope suggested: Paul Riesthuis - paul.riesthuis@kuleuven.be , Lorraine Hope suggested: Renan Saraiva - renan.saraiva@port.ac.uk, Paul Riesthuis [paul.riesthuis@kuleuven.be] suggested: Giuliana Mazzoni - giulianamazzoni3@gmail.com, Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: I'm sorry but given my other commitments I can't commit to returning a review within 5 days. , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: The following colleagues would be excellent reviewers for this: , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Malwina Szpitalak (malwina.szpitalak@uj.edu.pl) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Romuald Polczyk (romuald.polczyk@uj.edu.pl) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Iwona Dudek (iwona.dudek@doctoral.uj.edu.pl) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Giuliana Mazzoni (giulianamazzoni3@gmail.com) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Daniel Bernstein (Daniel.Bernstein@kpu.ca) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Greg Neil (greg.neil@solent.ac.uk) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Aileen Oeberst (aileen.oeberst@fernuni-hagen.de) , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Hope this helps & best wishes, , Hartmut Blank [hartmut.blank@port.ac.uk] suggested: Hartmut, John Wixted [jwixted@ucsd.edu] suggested: Perhaps Kenneth Malmberg (University of South Florida) would be good for this., Rob Nash [r.nash1@aston.ac.uk] suggested: Sorry: Please note that I am one of the authors of this snapshot!, Daniel Bernstein [daniel.bernstein@kpu.ca] suggested: Hartmut Blank at the University of Portsmouth. I do not have his email on hand., Aileen Oeberst [aileen.oeberst@fernuni-hagen.de] suggested: Ann-Christin Posten , Aileen Oeberst [aileen.oeberst@fernuni-hagen.de] suggested: p.s.: the title of this manuscript is truly irritating as it suggests that the results are already known - which would be at odds with the notion of a registered report. , Aileen Oeberst [aileen.oeberst@fernuni-hagen.de] suggested: best, , Aileen Oeberst [aileen.oeberst@fernuni-hagen.de] suggested: aileen No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-09-21 09:08:32

Zoltan Dienes