participants recalled getting lost in a shopping mall as children.

1990 年代有項研究

Some shared these memories in vivid detail—

要求受試者回想自己小時候 在購物中心走失的情況。

one even remembered that the old man who rescued him

有些人生動描述回憶的細節，

was wearing a flannel shirt.

有一位甚至記得拯救他的老人

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

身穿著法蘭絨襯衫。

They produced these false memories

但這些受試者 其實都未曾在購物中心走失。

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

他們會製造出這些錯誤的記憶，

and although they might not remember the incident,

是因為做這個研究的心理師 說他們曾經走失，

their parents had confirmed it.

雖然他們可能不記得這起意外，

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

但他們的父母已經證實此事。

a quarter of the participants did.

認為自己記得走失的 不只有一兩個人，

These findings may sound unbelievable,

25% 的受試者都記得這件事。

but they actually reflect a very common experience.

這些研究結果聽起來讓人難以置信，

Our memories are sometimes unreliable.

但其實反應出很相似的經驗：

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

我們的記憶有時候不太可靠。

on a neurological level,

雖然我們不太清楚在神經方面 是什麼造成這樣的謬誤，

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.

「走失」這項研究指出我們是如何

The mall study highlights how we can incorporate information

將外在資源的資訊

from outside sources,

──像是他人言論或是新聞──

like other people or the news,

融入我們的個人回憶，而毫無自覺。

into our personal recollections without realizing it.

這種暗示只是影響 我們記憶的其中一種方式。

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

另一項研究中，

Take another study,

研究人員在短時間內 給受試者隨機看幾張照片，

in which researchers briefly showed a random collection of photographs

其中有幾張照片 是他們未曾造訪的大學校園。

to a group of participants,

看過照片的三週後，

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

大部分的受試者說他們也許或一定

When shown the images three weeks later,

參觀過這個校園。

a majority of participants said that they had probably or definitely

受試者錯把情境裡的資訊 ──也就是他們見過的照片──

visited the campus in the past.

放進另一個情境裡──

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

也就是他們印象中 自己經歷過的事件。

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

在另一項實驗裡， 受試者看著放大鏡的照片，

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

但必須想像一支棒棒糖。

and then told to imagine a lollipop.

他們不斷回想起 自己看到放大鏡和棒棒糖。

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

對他們來說要把這兩樣東西 和事實湊起來非常難：

They struggled to link the objects to the correct context—

他們不知道到底哪個是親眼所見， 哪個只是出於想像。

whether they actually saw them, or simply imagined them.

另一項研究中， 心理師詢問超過兩千人

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

對於大麻合法化的看法，

on their views about the legalization of marijuana,

點出影響記憶的另一種方式。

highlights yet another kind of influence on memory.

受試者在 1973 和 1982 年 回答這個問題。

Participants answered questions in 1973 and 1982.

在 1973 年支持大麻合法化，

Those who said they had supported marijuana legalization in 1973,

但後來在 1982 年反對的人，

but reported they were against it in 1982,

較容易有自己 1973 年那時 其實也反對的印象，

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

好讓他們過去和現在的觀點能一致。

bringing their old views in line with their current ones.

我們現在的意見、感覺和經驗

Our current opinions, feelings, and experiences

會誤導我們對過去感受的記憶。

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

在另一項研究中，

In another study,

研究員給兩組受試者 史上一場戰爭的背景資訊，

researchers gave two groups of participants background information

要求他們去評估 哪一邊比較可能會贏。

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

他們給兩組一樣的資訊，

They gave each group the same information,

不過其中一組還得知誰贏了，

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

另一組不知道戰爭結果。

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

理論上，兩組人的答案應該相近，

In theory, both groups' answers should be similar,

因為哪邊會打贏的機率

because the likelihood of each side winning

不受誰真的贏了影響，

isn't effected by who actually won—

就像預報有雷雨的機率是 20%， 後來真的有雷雨，

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

雷雨的機率並不會 回到過去變成 100%。

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

然而，知道戰爭怎麼結束的那組人

Still, the group that knew how the war ended

比起另一組不知道的人 預測真正贏家打贏的機率比較高。

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

這些記憶的謬誤 都會在真實世界造成影響。

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

像是如果警察用引導式問句 訊問證人或嫌犯，

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

其中的暗示就可能造成 錯誤指認或不可信的供認。

suggestibility could result in incorrect identifications or unreliable confessions.

即使沒有引導式問句，

Even in the absence of leading questions,

錯誤歸因也可能造成 證人的證詞不正確。

misattribution can lead to inaccurate eyewitness testimony.

在法庭裡，

In a courtroom,

如果法官裁定不採信某個證據，

if a judge rules a piece of evidence inadmissible

並告訴陪審團無視此事， 他們還不見得辦得到。

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

在醫療場所裡，如果病人詢求 第二位醫師的看法，

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

第二位醫師知道前一位的診斷，

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

就可能會誤導他自己的推論。

that knowledge may bias their conclusion.

我們的記憶並不見得會呈現事實，

Our memories are not ironclad representations of reality,

而是會呈現我們的主觀感知。

but subjective perceptions.

這件事不必然會有什麼問題，

And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that—

問題是當我們把記憶當做真相，

the problems arise when we treat memory as fact,

而不接受這個根本事實：

rather than accepting this fundamental truth

我們的回憶有其天性。

about the nature of our recollections.