In one study on the audience-tuning effect,participants watched a video of a bar fight. In the video, two intoxicated menget into a physical confrontation after one man has argued with his friend, andthe other has seen his favourite football team lose a match. Afterwards,participants were asked to tell a stranger what they had seen.

在一項受眾調(diào)諧效應(yīng)（即觀眾效應(yīng)）的研究中，參與者觀看了一段酒吧斗毆的視頻。在視頻中，兩個喝醉的男人陷入了一場身體對抗，這是在其中一個男人和他的朋友發(fā)生爭執(zhí)，以及另一個男人看到他最喜歡的足球隊輸了一場比賽后發(fā)生的。之后，參與者被要求把TA的所見告訴一個陌生人。

The study’s participants were split intotwo groups. One group was told that the stranger disliked one of the twofighters in the video. The other group was told that the stranger liked thissame fighter. Unsurprisingly, this extra information shaped how peopledescribed the video to the stranger. Participants gave more negative accountsof the behaviour of the fighter if they believed the stranger disliked him.

該研究的參與者被分成了兩個組。一個組被告知這個陌生人不喜歡視頻中的其中一個打架者。另一個組被告知這個陌生人喜歡那同一個打架者。沒有讓人驚訝的是，這條額外的信息轉(zhuǎn)變了人們把這個視頻描述給這個陌生人的方式。對于這個打架者的行為，參與者給出了更多的負(fù)面說辭，如果他們相信這個陌生人不喜歡他。? ?

More importantly though, the way peopletold their story later affected the way they remembered the fighter’sbehaviour. When participants later tried to remember the fight in a neutral,unbiased way, the two groups still gave somewhat differing accounts of what hadhappened, mirroring the attitude of their original audience. To an extent,these participants’ stories had become their memories.

但更重要的是，人們在之后講述故事的方式影響了他們對于那個打架者行為的記憶。當(dāng)參與者在之后嘗試用一種中立而不帶偏見的方式回憶這場斗毆時，這兩組仍然或多或少地給出了對所發(fā)生之事的不同論調(diào)，反映出他們最初受眾的態(tài)度。在一定程度上，這些參與者講出的故事已經(jīng)變成了他們的記憶。

Results like these show us how our memoriescan change spontaneously over time, as a product of how, when, and why weaccess them. In fact, sometimes simply the act of rehearsing a memory can beexactly what makes it susceptible to change. This is known as“retri-enhanced suggestibility”.

類似這樣的結(jié)果向我們展現(xiàn)了：我們的記憶作為我們?nèi)绾巍⒑螘r以及為什么去取用的產(chǎn)物，可以隨著時間流變而無意識地發(fā)生改變。事實上，僅憑重演一段記憶的行為就可以使其容易生變。這被稱為“經(jīng)由讀取加強(qiáng)的暗示性”。

In a typical study of this effect,participants watched a short film, then took a memory test a few days later.But during the days between watching the film and taking the final test, twoother things happened. First, half of the participants took a practice memorytest. Second, all of the participants were given a description of the film toread, which contained some false details.

在一個典型的對這種效應(yīng)的研究中，參與者觀看一部短片，然后在幾天以后參加一場記憶測驗。但在看片和參加最終測驗之間的日子里，有另兩件事發(fā)生了。第一件是，有一半的參與者參加了一場記憶試測。第二件是，發(fā)給所有參與者一段對片子的描述讓他們?nèi)ラ喿x，其中包含了一些錯誤細(xì)節(jié)。

The aim of these studies was to see howmany of the false details people would eventually reproduce in the final memorytest. Hundreds of studies already show that people will unwittingly add falsedetails like these to their memories. But these studies found something evenmore fascinating. Participants who took a practice memory test shortly beforereading the false information were more likely to reproduce this falseinformation in the final memory test. In this case, practice makes imperfect.

這些研究的目的是要看看人們在最后的記憶測驗中最終會重現(xiàn)出多少錯誤細(xì)節(jié)。數(shù)百個研究已經(jīng)表情，人們會不知不覺地把錯誤細(xì)節(jié)加進(jìn)他們的記憶中去。但這些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些更讓人著迷的東西。在閱讀錯誤信息前不久參加過試測的參與者，更有可能在最后的記憶測試中重現(xiàn)出這些錯誤信息。在本案例中，練習(xí)用的試測造成了不完美。

Why might this be? One theory is thatrehearsing our memories of past events can temporarily make those memoriesmalleable. In other words, retrieving a memory might be a bit like takingice-cream out of the freezer and leaving it in direct sunlight for a while. Bythe time our memory goes back into the freezer, it might have naturally becomea little misshapen, especially if someone has meddled with it in the meantime.

為什么會是這樣呢？有一種理論是：重演我們那些過往事件的記憶會臨時賦予那些記憶可塑性。換句話說，取用一段記憶可能有點像從冰箱里拿出冰淇淋，然后任其被太陽直射一段時間。而到我們的記憶回到冰箱的時候，它可能已經(jīng)很自然地發(fā)生了一些小小的變形，尤其是某人在這個期間內(nèi)對它作了干預(yù)的情況下。

These findings teach us a lot about how ourmemories are formed and stored. And they might lead us to wonder how much ourmost treasured memories have changed since the very first time we rememberedthem.

關(guān)于我們的記憶如何形成和貯藏，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)教會了我們很多。而且，可能它們會讓我們好奇：那最最珍視的記憶自從我們第一次記下它們之后，到底發(fā)生了多少改變。

Or perhaps not. After all, my research withother colleagues shows that people are generally pretty unwilling to investtime and effort in checking the accuracy of their memories. But whether or notyou ever actually discover any small or large changes that have occurred, it’sunlikely that your treasured memory is 100% accurate. Remembering is an act ofstorytelling, after all. And our memories are only ever as reliable as the mostrecent story we told ourselves.

或者也可能并非如此。畢竟，我和其他同事的研究表明：大體上，人們是相當(dāng)不愿意投入時間和精力去檢查他們記憶的準(zhǔn)確性的。但是，無論你是否真的發(fā)現(xiàn)了業(yè)已發(fā)生的任何或小或大的變化，你所珍視的記憶不可能是100%準(zhǔn)確的。畢竟，憶起是一種講故事的行為。而我們記憶的可靠程度，就和最近一次我們講給自己聽的故事一樣。

評論區(qū)：

1、This is an excellentpiece. The role of the evidence of witnesses in criminal trials seemsproblematic. Where a case is based, more or less, on the competing testimony oftwo witnesses, it should not come to trial, in my view.

這是一篇出色的文章。這樣的話在刑事審判中證人的作用似乎就存在問題了。在我看來，當(dāng)一個案子或多或少地基于兩名證人相互矛盾的證詞，就不應(yīng)該進(jìn)入審理階段。

（回復(fù)1）That assumes that neither of the witnesses might be deliberatelylying. The policy would be easily manipulated.

那樣的話所假設(shè)的是：兩位證人不可能都故意撒謊。警方將會很容易被操縱。

（回復(fù)2）No, I would not make that assumption. Deliberate lying is not thepivotal issue as the article makes clear. Could we be sure beyond allreasonable doubt that someone was guilty of a crime if the evidence was only,or virtually only, the testimony of one honest witness? I don’t think so.

不，我不會做那種假設(shè)。就如該文所表明的那樣，故意撒謊并不是關(guān)鍵問題。如果僅有的證據(jù)或者實質(zhì)上僅有的證據(jù)是一名誠實證人的證詞，我們能排除所有合理的對某人有罪的懷疑而確定無疑嗎？

（回復(fù)3）Deliberate lying may not be the pivotal issue in the article, Iagree, but it is a pivotal issue in many, perhaps most, criminal trials, andmuch civil litigation.

故意撒謊可能不是文中的關(guān)鍵問題，我同意，但這是很多刑事審判和很多民事訴訟中的一個關(guān)鍵，可能還是最關(guān)鍵的問題。

（回復(fù)4）If recall from different witnesses are different,? then the law assumes one or more aredishonest, not different.? Law ignoresthat memory changes.

如果來自不同證人的回憶是不同的，那么法律會推定一個或更多個人是不誠實的，而不認(rèn)可這種不同。法律無視記憶會改變的事實。

But human memory is variable, not constant.

但人的記憶是多變的，并不是恒定不變的。

（回復(fù)5）Hugh, there are many instances where a criminal case may be based onthe competing testimony of two witnesses. But while we are correct to treatmemory with suspicion, you go too far.

一個犯罪案件可能基于兩名證人互相矛盾的證詞，這是有很多例子的。但與此同時，我們看待記憶時抱著懷疑是正確的，你太極端了

Cases of abuse, for example, may bewitnessed only by the victim and their abuser. It is the job of a jury todecide whether a witness is credible.

比如說，虐待案的目擊者可能只有受害者和施虐者。法官的工作就是去判定一個證人是否可信。

（回復(fù)6）No, it is the job of a jury to decide whether, beyond all reasonabledoubt, an accused person is guilty. Whether or not a witness is credible is guess-work. Furthermore, whethera witness is credible and whether what he or she says is true and quiteseparate matters. If, in, for instance, a case of alleged abuse, there is no evidenceagainst an accused person but the word of the alleged victim, the case shouldnot come to trial (especially, one might say, if the witness was credible sincethis might make a jury more likely to believe what is said whether or not it istrue.)

不，法官的工作是排除掉所有合理的懷疑，去判定一個被告是否有罪。證人可信與否是只是一種推測。而且，證人可信與否以及他或她所說的是否屬實完全是兩回事。比如說，如果在一個所謂的虐待案件中，除了所謂的受害者的說法，沒有任何證據(jù)對被告不利，該案件就不該進(jìn)入審判階段（尤其是證人可信時，因為這可能會讓法官更傾向于相信TA的說法，無論是否屬實）。

2、If I live dramaticcircunstance my memories are more clear and precise ,I m 73 years old and havememory of details very good and clear .Thing is happen and if I not sure neverchange ,I will said truth I? not remember.Againand again come this commentary to show our opinions and experiences are fragileand surreal. So? what happens if we livein an unreal and liar world? were the moral values are cero.It’s thiscontagious?Human are here for millons of years and 99% of the time ,? ours memories transfer experiences andteaching through our poor human’s brains .We are here so far basically becousetransfer oral history made us more adaptable and strong,? advance or simple research cannot be validfor every one in the some ways.

如果我生活在戲劇化的環(huán)境中，我的記憶會更清楚更準(zhǔn)確，我已經(jīng)73歲了，有著非常好而清晰的細(xì)節(jié)記憶。事情發(fā)生了，而如果我不確定這記憶從沒發(fā)生變化，我會實話實說我不記得。這種表明我們的見解和體驗脆弱而不真實的評論性文章反復(fù)地出現(xiàn)。如果我們生活在一個不真實的謊言世界里，會如何呢？那里道德的價值為零。這種情況會不會傳染呢？人類存在已經(jīng)幾百萬年了，99%的時間里，我們的記憶通過可憐的人類大腦傳授經(jīng)驗和教導(dǎo)。到目前為止，我們還能在這里，基本上就是因為口口相傳的歷史令我們更能隨機(jī)應(yīng)變更強(qiáng)大，對每個人來說，某種程度上高級的或是簡單的研究不可能是靠譜的。

3、It is interesting toreflect on how much ‘history’ - including many religious works - was notwritten down until a long time after the events described. So how much credenceshould one place on such stories? Not a lot, I would say.

去回想下有多少“歷史”（包括很多宗教作品）直到這些被描述的事件發(fā)生很久以后才被記錄下來，這是很有意思的。所以你應(yīng)該給這種故事多少可信度？我會說，沒多少。