本研究採用修正過的TST測量方法，檢驗研究參與者對人情事件的記憶會不會受到人情對象明確與否的影響。研究一的結果顯示：在人情對象明確（A君）時，研究參與者所回憶「我幫別人」與「別人幫我」的事件，在整體事件數與事件平均成本均沒有顯著差異，此可能和個人傾向採社會交換的訊息處理方式有關。相對地，在人情對象模糊（別人）時，研究參與者所回憶的「我幫別人」訊息，不論在整體事件數或事件平均成本，均顯著大於「別人幫我」的事件，此則可能是受到自利偏誤影響個人記憶相關人情事件的影響。研究二則進一步要求研究參與者連續記錄四天的人情事件，除再一次檢驗研究一的假設，也探討人情事件大小的影響效果。結果顯示，研究二在整體人情事件數與事件平均成本雖然獲得和研究一相同的結果，但進一步將人情事件分為「大事」和「小事」後，則發現在人情對象模糊（別人）時，研究參與者傾向受到自利偏誤的影響，記憶較多我幫別人的大事；不過，在人情對象明確（A君）時，卻是記憶較多A君幫我的大事。此可能受到華人對「報」的概念是「多加回報」而非西方「等量回報」的影響。至於人情事件為小事時，研究參與者對相關人情事件的記憶則不受對象明確與否，以及此人情自己是施者或受者的影響。 Using a modified TST method, the present study tested the influence of target ambiguity on participants' memories of performing and receiving favors. Results of Study 1 showed that when the target of favor-doing was specific (A), participants tended to adopt the framework of social exchange theory to recall favor-doing episodes, specifically, the frequency and average efforts they recalled for Ihelped-A and A-helped-me favors were equal. However, when the target was ambiguous, participants' memories seemed to be biased by self-serving, for they recalled more I-helped-A favors than A-helpedme, and the average efforts of I-helped-A were higher than those of Ahelped-me. In Study 2, participants were instructed to record favors they performed and received for four consecutive days. Again, the results supported the results of Study 1. Furthermore, the favors in study 2 were divided into big vs. small. Participants recorded more Ihelped-other big favors than other-helped-me when the favor targets were ambiguous. However, when the target was specific (A), participants recorded more A-helped-me big favors than I-helped-A. This may be caused by the Confucian concept of "paying back," which refers to "paying more," as opposed to the Western concept of "paying equally".
