Talk:Source-monitoring error

= Difficult to read =

Untitled
I found even the intro to this article difficult to read, as it jumped right into technical psych jargon - and I've studied a lot of psychology over the years. So I expect it's really daunting to someone totally unfamiliar with the field. Perhaps someone familiar with this particular subject could reword the intro for laymen? Bookbrad (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the introductory paragraph is a bit complex and does not necessarily invite people to be learning more about the topic--It assumes a certain degree of knowledge about this topic from the start. I would like to add a more relatable example, along the lines of "For example, individuals may learn about a current event from a friend, but later report having learned about it on the local news." Also, I believe the first sentence should be made more clear, such as "A source-monitoring error is a type of memory error where the source of a memory is incorrectly attributed to some specific recollected experience." I believe this clarifies the true definition of a source-monitoring error by establishing first that the misattribution of the source is the defining factor. Jasonbrovich (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The example you propose is an excellent one that should make the concept much more accessible to someone looking for information/understanding about the topic.Redmach197 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It has also just come to my attention that the first article linked in the definition ('memory error') links separately to the article for Memory and the article for Error (a generically defined error). I will correct it to link to memory errors. A later internal link redirects to 'Thiotimoline,' which seems utterly unrelated to the article and the sentence in which it was linked. I will remove this link. Jasonbrovich (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of old-new recognition
The short section on old-new recognition makes no mention of actually presenting items to the subjects, but rather just how they are supposed to be recognizing them. Also, explaining it as "a participant indicates if an item is new by responding "no" and vice versa" is probably the most roundabout way to be explaining this relatively straightforward task. Minor grammatical errors. Jasonbrovich (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a great change to make. It would make it far more clear what the actual concept is, and applications of it. Ehardiman (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest mentioning the DRM illusion here, in the sense that one factor of the DRM effect is forgetting whether the word was actually on the list, or you simply thought of it as a related word (i.e. confusing sources between your thoughts/schemas and the actual word list.) At the very least, it seems more fitting to be mentioned here than under the remember-know judgment section. Also, as an additional and tangentially related note, the 2nd paragraph under false fame has nothing whatsoever to do with the false fame effect, and should probably moved to another section, although I'm unsure where it would fit within the current structure of the article. Jennjiyoun (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Jennjiyoun, that's a really great suggestion, I will make that addition. Regarding the second paragraph under 'False Fame Effect,' while it does seem a bit random, the paper which is cited does in fact give evidence of increased source-monitoring errors in adults with memories of past lives.  I will attempt to clean up that section so it seems more fitting with the rest of the section and article. Jasonbrovich (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

does source amnesia count here, and if so is the discussion of recollection appropriate as written? Elizareader (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)