误导信息和源检测影响证言准确性的实验研究

心理与行为研究 ›› 2008, Vol. 6 ›› Issue (4): 255-259.

误导信息和源检测影响证言准确性的实验研究

姜丽娜¹,罗大华¹,应柳华²

1证据科学教育部重点实验室（中国政法大学）,北京 100088;
2中国政法大学社会学院,北京 100088

收稿日期:2008-07-30 出版日期:2008-12-20 发布日期:2015-01-21
作者简介:姜丽娜,女,中国政法大学研究生院刑事司法学院证据法学博士生。Email: jln0507@163.com。罗大华,男,中国政法大学教授,博士生导师。
基金资助:
本研究得到教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关06JZB0011项目和中国政法大学证据科学研究院科研创新团队的资助

MISINFORMATION AND SOURCE MONITORING INFLUENCE ON THE ACCURACY OF TESTIMONY

Jiang Lina¹,Luo Dahua¹,Ying Liuhua²

1 Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China University of Politics Science and Law, Beijing 100088;
2 School of Sociology, China University of Politics Science and Law, Beijing 100088

Received:2008-07-30 Online:2008-12-20 Published:2015-01-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过操纵信息类型与测试类型两个自变量,探讨误导信息和源检测对证言准确性、自信程度的影响,同时研究了心理控制源、焦虑、自尊与证言准确性、自信程度的相关。研究发现,误导信息是影响证言准确性的重要因素,自信程度与心理控制源、自尊之间存在正相关。

关键词: 证言, 误导信息, 源检测

Abstract: By manipulating the types of information and types of test, the authors investigated the effect of misinformation and source monitoring on the accuracy and confidence of testimony. In addition, the authors investigated the relationship of accuracy and confidence of testimony with focus of control, anxiety, self-esteem in this situation. The results indicated that taking the accuracy of testimony as independent variables, the misinformation has main effect. The correlation analysis suggests that there are positive correlation between confidence with focus of control and self-esteem.

Key words: testimony, misinformation, source monitoring

中图分类号:

B849

姜丽娜,罗大华,应柳华. 误导信息和源检测影响证言准确性的实验研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2008, 6(4): 255-259.

Jiang Lina,Luo Dahua,Ying Liuhua. MISINFORMATION AND SOURCE MONITORING INFLUENCE ON THE ACCURACY OF TESTIMONY[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2008, 6(4): 255-259.

参考文献

[1] Yarmey A D. Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Canadian psychology, 2001, 42(2): 92~100
[2] Loftus E F. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cog- nitive Psychology, 1975, 7(4): 560~572
[3] Johnson M K, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay D S. Sourcemonitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 1993, 114(1): 3~28
[4] Lindsay D S, Johnson M K. The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 1989, 17(3): 349~358
[5] Hekkanen S T, McEvoy C. False memories and source-monitoring problems: Criterion differences, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2002, 16(11): 73~85
[6] Lindsay D S, Allen B P, Chan J C K, et al. Eyewitness suggestibility and source similarity: intrusions of details from one event into memory reports. Journal of Memory and Language, 2004, 50(1): 96~111
[7] Polczyk R. Interrogative suggestibility: cross - cultural stability of psychometric and correlation properties of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 2005, 38(1): 177~186
[8] Liebman J I, Mckinley-Pace M J, Leonard A M, et al. Cognitive and psychological correlates of adults′ eyewitness accuracy and suggestibility. Personality and Individual Difference, 2002, 33(1): 49~66
[9] Shapiro L R, Blackford C, Chen C. Eyewitness memory for a simulated misdemeanor crime: the role of age and temprament in suggestibility, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2005, 19(3): 267~289
[10] 汪向东, 王希林, 马弘. 心理卫生评定量表手册（增订版）. 北京: 中国心理卫生杂志社, 1999
[11] Loftus E F, Miller D G, Burns H J. Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Human Learning and Memory, 1978, 4(1): 19~31
[12] Eakin D K, Schreiber T A, Sergent-Marshall S. Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accuracy. Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2003, 29(5): 813~825
[13] Henry L. Roediger, Lisa Geraci. Aging and the Misinformation Effect: A Neuropsychological Analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2007, 33(2): 321~334
[14] Zaragoza M S, Lane S M. Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1994, 20(4): 934~945
[15] Shaw J S, Garcia L A, Robles B E. Cross-language postevent misinformation effects in Spanish-English bilingual witnesses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82(6): 889~899