Are all of your memories real? - Daniel L. Schacter

譯者: Yi-Ping Cho (Marssi) 審譯者: Regina Chu

In a study in the 1990s,

1990 年代有項研究

participants recalled getting lost in a shopping mall as children.

要求受試者回想自己小時候 在購物中心走失的情況。

Some shared these memories in vivid detail—

有些人生動描述回憶的細節，

one even remembered that the old man who rescued him

有一位甚至記得拯救他的老人

was wearing a flannel shirt.

身穿著法蘭絨襯衫。

But none of these people had actually gotten lost in a mall.

但這些受試者 其實都未曾在購物中心走失。

They produced these false memories

他們會製造出這些錯誤的記憶，

when the psychologists conducting the study told them they’d gotten lost,

是因為做這個研究的心理師 說他們曾經走失，

and although they might not remember the incident,

雖然他們可能不記得這起意外，

their parents had confirmed it.

但他們的父母已經證實此事。

And it wasn’t just one or two people who thought they remembered getting lost—

認為自己記得走失的 不只有一兩個人，

a quarter of the participants did.

25% 的受試者都記得這件事。

These findings may sound unbelievable,

這些研究結果聽起來讓人難以置信，

but they actually reflect a very common experience.

但其實反應出很相似的經驗：

Our memories are sometimes unreliable.

我們的記憶有時候不太可靠。

And though we still don’t know precisely what causes this fallibility

雖然我們不太清楚在神經方面 是什麼造成這樣的謬誤，

on a neurological level,

research has highlighted some of the most common ways our memories

研究點出造成我們的記憶 偏離事實的幾個常見原因。

diverge from what actually happened.

The mall study highlights how we can incorporate information

「走失」這項研究指出我們是如何

from outside sources,

將外在資源的資訊

like other people or the news,

──像是他人言論或是新聞──

into our personal recollections without realizing it.

融入我們的個人回憶，而毫無自覺。

This kind of suggestibility is just one influence on our memories.

這種暗示只是影響 我們記憶的其中一種方式。

Take another study,

另一項研究中，

in which researchers briefly showed a random collection of photographs

研究人員在短時間內 給受試者隨機看幾張照片，

to a group of participants,

including images of a university campus none of them had ever visited.

其中有幾張照片 是他們未曾造訪的大學校園。

When shown the images three weeks later,

看過照片的三週後，

a majority of participants said that they had probably or definitely

大部分的受試者說他們也許或一定

visited the campus in the past.

參觀過這個校園。

The participants misattributed information from one context— an image they’d seen—

受試者錯把情境裡的資訊 ──也就是他們見過的照片──

onto another— a memory of something they believed they actually experienced.

放進另一個情境裡──

也就是他們印象中 自己經歷過的事件。

In another experiment, people were shown an image of a magnifying glass,

在另一項實驗裡， 受試者看著放大鏡的照片，

and then told to imagine a lollipop.

但必須想像一支棒棒糖。

They frequently recalled that they saw the magnifying glass and the lollipop.

他們不斷回想起 自己看到放大鏡和棒棒糖。

They struggled to link the objects to the correct context—

對他們來說要把這兩樣東西 和事實湊起來非常難：

whether they actually saw them, or simply imagined them.

他們不知道到底哪個是親眼所見， 哪個只是出於想像。

Another study, where a psychologist questioned over 2,000 people

另一項研究中， 心理師詢問超過兩千人

on their views about the legalization of marijuana,

對於大麻合法化的看法，

highlights yet another kind of influence on memory.

點出影響記憶的另一種方式。

Participants answered questions in 1973 and 1982.

受試者在 1973 和 1982 年 回答這個問題。

Those who said they had supported marijuana legalization in 1973,

在 1973 年支持大麻合法化，

but reported they were against it in 1982,

但後來在 1982 年反對的人，

were more likely to recall that they were actually against legalization in 1973—

較容易有自己 1973 年那時 其實也反對的印象，

bringing their old views in line with their current ones.

好讓他們過去和現在的觀點能一致。

Our current opinions, feelings, and experiences

我們現在的意見、感覺和經驗

can bias our memories of how we felt in the past.

會誤導我們對過去感受的記憶。

In another study,

在另一項研究中，

researchers gave two groups of participants background information

研究員給兩組受試者 史上一場戰爭的背景資訊，

on a historical war and asked them to rate the likelihood that each side would win.

要求他們去評估 哪一邊比較可能會贏。

They gave each group the same information,

他們給兩組一樣的資訊，

except that they only told one group who had actually won the war—

不過其中一組還得知誰贏了，

the other group didn’t know the real world outcome.

另一組不知道戰爭結果。

In theory, both groups’ answers should be similar,

理論上，兩組人的答案應該相近，

because the likelihood of each side winning

因為哪邊會打贏的機率

isn’t effected by who actually won—

不受誰真的贏了影響，

if there’s a 20% chance of thunderstorms, and a thunderstorm happens,

就像預報有雷雨的機率是 20%， 後來真的有雷雨，

the chance of thunderstorms doesn’t retroactively go up to 100%.

雷雨的機率並不會 回到過去變成 100%。

Still, the group that knew how the war ended

然而，知道戰爭怎麼結束的那組人

rated the winning side as more likely to win than the group who did not.

比起另一組不知道的人 預測真正贏家打贏的機率比較高。

All of these fallibilities of memory can have real-world impacts.

這些記憶的謬誤 都會在真實世界造成影響。

If police interrogations use leading questions with eye witnesses or suspects,

像是如果警察用引導式問句 訊問證人或嫌犯，

suggestibility could result in incorrect identifications or unreliable confessions.

其中的暗示就可能造成 錯誤指認或不可信的供認。

Even in the absence of leading questions,

即使沒有引導式問句，

misattribution can lead to inaccurate eyewitness testimony.

錯誤歸因也可能造成 證人的證詞不正確。

In a courtroom,

在法庭裡，

if a judge rules a piece of evidence inadmissible

如果法官裁定不採信某個證據，

and tells jurors to disregard it, they may not be able to do so.

並告訴陪審團無視此事， 他們還不見得辦得到。

In a medical setting, if a patient seeks a second opinion

在醫療場所裡，如果病人詢求 第二位醫師的看法，

and the second physician is aware of the first one’s diagnosis,

第二位醫師知道前一位的診斷，

that knowledge may bias their conclusion.

就可能會誤導他自己的推論。

Our memories are not ironclad representations of reality,

我們的記憶並不見得會呈現事實，

but subjective perceptions.

而是會呈現我們的主觀感知。

And there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that—

這件事不必然會有什麼問題，

the problems arise when we treat memory as fact,

問題是當我們把記憶當做真相，

rather than accepting this fundamental truth

而不接受這個根本事實：

about the nature of our recollections.

我們的回憶有其天性。