False Memories of Fabricated Political Events 50% remember and 27% saw it on TV

page: 1
43
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Well, I thought this was interesting. I still need to read it in full.


Abstract:
In the largest false memory study to date, 5,269 participants were asked about their memories for three true and one of five fabricated political events. Each fabricated event was accompanied by a photographic image purportedly depicting that event. Approximately half the participants falsely remembered that the false event happened, with 27% remembering that they saw the events happen on the news. Political orientation appeared to influence the formation of false memories, with conservatives more likely to falsely remember seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran, and liberals more likely to remember George W. Bush vacationing with a baseball celebrity during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. A follow-up study supported the explanation that events are more easily implanted in memory when they are congruent with a person's preexisting attitudes and evaluations, in part because attitude-congruent false events promote feelings of recognition and familiarity, which in turn interfere with source attributions.


Social Science Research Network

Now let me drift off and consider the possible implications of these findings.


 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 10/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Pretty cool, but the link isn't working



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I've read quite a bit about the false memory studies, one of my degrees being in psych.
I'm interested in the political part of this particular study. Haven't read anything like that(hehe, guess I'm not susceptible to false memories).
It's an interesting topic. There was one study(it's a little different, but involves wrong memories) that followed people's experiences on 9/11. They asked them the day after it happened, where they were when they heard about it....then a few years later they asked them again. I forget the exact percentage, but many people's recounting of the tales differed significantly.
It's pretty scary when you think about it.


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Here's the real kicker... exposure to this information also predisposes us to the potential of being convinced that things we actually did see are false memories. Thus rewriting history can be accomplished by simply creating a meme that an event never happened and then waiting for it to take hold.

THIS is why I keep a private and personal journal.


We hate to admit it - but our perception of reality is actually very pliable. Memory even more so.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Very interesting, and the more I think about it, the more unsettling it becomes.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonewulph
 


The implications are scary. I wonder how far the envelope can be pushed on this?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
How can the researcher tell the difference between someone having a "false memory" and someone just lying on purpose? What's the difference between the two? Does it matter?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


well, a +/- 3% is typical in any study. But you have to assume that respondants are not lying.

Although there may be a VERY thin line between lying and false memory. I am not fond of Obama or Bush either one. But I don't think shaking hands with Ahmedinejad would be a bad thing at all. I still wouldn't have sworn that it didn't happen without really having to think about it.

But the GW Bush thing about vacationing with a baseball player? Yea, I am positive it didn't happen. And even if it did....is it the POTUS job to tend to a state level issue? We decry "states rights" like petulent children, only wanting "rights" as far as is convenience allows.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





But you have to assume that respondants are not lying.




So did these people have a "false memory" or are they just lying?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
How can the researcher tell the difference between someone having a "false memory" and someone just lying on purpose? What's the difference between the two? Does it matter?
Is there some reason they want to lie to a researcher?

The researchers may also have screening criteria in selecting participants for the study, even trying to weed out people who are compulsive liars who would lie to a researcher for no reason.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
So... what I'm reading here is that there are more people out there like my husband than I thought.....


But not surprising.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
We hate to admit it - but our perception of reality is actually very pliable. Memory even more so.


This is why eyewitness testimony should be taken lightly in criminal trials. Remember that the next time you're on jury duty.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
This phenomena is exploited heavily when propagandists (MSM) repeat lies over and over. The lie then becomes regarded as truth, and remembered as reality.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Hefficide
We hate to admit it - but our perception of reality is actually very pliable. Memory even more so.


This is why eyewitness testimony should be taken lightly in criminal trials. Remember that the next time you're on jury duty.


You know, that's funny you bring that up. I was watching an old documentary on netflix recently about some serial killer guy named Andre Rand murderpedia.org... And they were talking about how back then (in the 60's / 70's / 80's ) it was common knowledge that eyewitness testimony is not reliable at all. But we seem to, as society, have forgotten that today. We rely on it quite a bit now.

but that documentary was kind of sad. Basically that Andre Rand guy probably didn't really commit the murders, everyone just blamed it on him because he was weird and the locals wanted to string somebody up. Even the guards in the prison said "you might not have done it, but consider yourself a martyr for the children..." The eyewitness testimonies were all totally bogus. And 9/10 of the witnesses were addicted to crack/heroin/etc and really couldn't have remembered anything. Half of them interviewed had no teeth. One of the eyewitnesses was saying how he saw one of the victims come into his store, and tried buying a bar of soap but was 5 cents short and couldn't buy it. But then another girl who was not the victim and had no knowledge of that detail, said in a separate interview she went to that same store at that same time and was also 5 cents short while buying soap. Hmm, too much of a coincidence if you ask me. In short, the guy who ran the store really didn't remember the girl he saw, as he saw someone totally different who was not the victim that was killed. But nevertheless, he testified in court against Andre.

The jury did eventually decide he was guilty, even though there was 0% physical, biological, or forensic evidence that he did it. He was sentenced to life in prison on eyewitness testimony from a bunch of drug addicts alone.

The documentary makes the conclusion that Rand probably didn't really do it, it was probably someone he knew as he had a lot of friends that were all weirdos too that were more likely suspects. He may have been guilty of the kidnapping, but they don't think that he actually carried out the murders.



edit on 9-2-2013 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


To compare a scientific experiment to some random guy querying schmucko's off the street for television is not quite an appropriate comparison.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I remember a study a while ago that discovered a certain percent of our memories (probably earlier memories) never happened and where either dreams or stories you had heard from somewhere else. Something to that effect anyway.

Or........ Did i just dream all that????

hhmmmmmm.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Carreau
How can the researcher tell the difference between someone having a "false memory" and someone just lying on purpose? What's the difference between the two? Does it matter?
Is there some reason they want to lie to a researcher?


This is actually a REAL problem that we have to deal with in scientific research. People lie to please the researcher, to make themselves look better, to cover that they've forgotten to notice something, etc, etc.


The researchers may also have screening criteria in selecting participants for the study, even trying to weed out people who are compulsive liars who would lie to a researcher for no reason.

We generally include repetitive questions (or reworded questions) for this reason.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Here's the real kicker... exposure to this information also predisposes us to the potential of being convinced that things we actually did see are false memories. Thus rewriting history can be accomplished by simply creating a meme that an event never happened and then waiting for it to take hold.

THIS is why I keep a private and personal journal.


We hate to admit it - but our perception of reality is actually very pliable. Memory even more so.

~Heff


The smile on my face is extending ear to ear with my cheeks glowing bright red. Someone could use this....

*twiddles fingers*



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Wow. This reminds me of the ministry of truth in George Orwell's book, 1984.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


Exactly what I was thinking

these people were probably too embarrassed to admit they don't remember so they went

oh yeah, I remember (so as to not look uninformed)





new topics
top topics
 
43
<<   2 >>

log in

join