Wishful thinking and source monitoring

Abstract

Memory distortions sometimes serve a purpose: It may be in our interest to misremember some details of an event or to forget others altogether. The present work examines whether a similar phenomenon occurs for source attribution. Given that the source of a memory provides information about the accuracy of its content, people may be biased toward source attributions that are consistent with desired accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants read desirable and undesirable predictions made by sources differing in their a priori reliability and showed awishful thinking bias—that is, a bias to attribute desirable predictions to the reliable source and undesirable predictions to the unreliable source. Experiment 2 showed that this wishful thinking effect depends on retrieval processes. Experiment 3 showed that under some circumstances, wishes concerning one event can produce systematic source memory errors for others.

References

  1. Allport, G. W., &Postman, L. J. (1945). The basic psychology of rumor.Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences,8, 61–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., &Berger, S. A. (1996). Accuracy and distortion in memory for high school grades.Psychological Science,7, 265–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bentall, R. P. (1990). The illusion of reality: A review and integration of psychological research on hallucinations.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 82–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boon, J., &Davies, G. (1996). Extra-stimulus influences on eyewitness perception and recall: Hastorf and Cantril revisited.Legal & Criminological Psychology,1, 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L., &Hicks, J. L. (2003). Halo and devil effects demonstrate valenced-based influences on source-monitoring decisions.Consciousness & Cognition,12, 257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dellarosa, D., &Bourne, L. E. (1984). Decisions and memory: Differential retrievability of consistent and contradictory evidence.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 669–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ditto, P. H., Jemmott, J. B., &Darley, J. M. (1988). Appraising the threat of illness: A mental representational approach.Health Psychology, 7, 183–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Greene, E. (1981). Whodunit? Memory for evidence in text.American Journal of Psychology,94, 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.American Psychologist,35, 603–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd′.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,27, 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Intraub, H., &Hoffman, J. E. (1992). Reading and visual memory: Remembering scenes that were never seen.American Journal of Psychology, 105, 101–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., &Leach, K. (1988). The consequences for memory of imagining in another person’s voice.Memory & Cognition, 16, 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., &Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 371–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson, M. K., Nolde, S. F., &De Leonardis, D. M. (1996). Emotional focus and source monitoring.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 135–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring.Psychological Review,88, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kahan, T. L., &Johnson, M. K. (1992). Self effects in memory for person information.Social Cognition,10, 30–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,108, 480–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (2004).Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., &Hicks, J. L. (1997). Contributions of inadequate source monitoring to unconscious plagiarism during idea generation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 886–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mather, M., &Johnson, M. K. (2000). Choice-supportive source monitoring: Do our decisions seem better to us as we age?Psychology & Aging,15, 596–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mather, M., Shafir, E., &Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misremembrance of options past: Source monitoring and choice.Psychological Science, 11, 132–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mather, M., Shafir, E., &Johnson, M. K. (2003). Remembering chosen and assigned options.Memory & Cognition,31, 422–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller, J. (1996). The sampling distribution ofd′.Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morrison, A., &Haddock, G. (1997). Cognitive factors in source monitoring and auditory hallucinations.Psychological Medicine,27, 669–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Perloff, L. S., &Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self—other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,50, 502–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., &Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 416–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., &Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,35, 677–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ross, M., McFarland, C., &Fletcher, G. J. (1981). The effect of attitude on the recall of personal histories.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,40, 627–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sherman, J. W., &Bessenoff, G. R. (1999). Stereotypes as sourcemonitoring cues: On the interaction between episodic and semantic memory.Psychological Science,10, 106–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor, S. E. (1989).Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Viscusi, K. (1992).Smoking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Weinstein, N. D., &Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future.Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,15, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Woike, B., &Polo, M. (2001). Motive-related memories: Content, structure, and affect.Journal of Personality,69, 391–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ruthanna Gordon or Nancy Franklin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gordon, R., Franklin, N. & Beck, J. Wishful thinking and source monitoring. Memory & Cognition 33, 418–429 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193060

Download citation

Keywords

  • Source Memory
  • Wishful Thinking
  • Source Monitoring
  • Encode Condition
  • Source Accuracy