coglab: false memory - wofford...
TRANSCRIPT
CogLab: False memory
F’10 (n = 9)
Phase 1: list presented
(1.5s each word)
Phase 2: recognition test
w/ distractors
IV: distractor type
(related/unrelated)
Results
Old: 79%
Related 66.6%
Unrelated: 1.5%
Conclusion
Roediger & McDermott (1995)
Can false memory be created for words not
presented?
Study: Listened to list
6 lists of 12 words based on critical word
DRM paradigm: semantically similar words in list
Test phase:
Recall each list
After 6 lists, recognition test with confidence rating
Example DRM lists
Butter
Food
Eat
Sandwich
Lunch
Milk
Jelly
Crust
Slice
Toast
Candy
Bake
Sugar
Taste
Tooth
Honey
Chocolate
Good
Cake
Pie
Bed
Rest
Tired
Dream
Night
Blanket
Snore
Nap
Peace
Yawn
Table
Sit
Legs
Seat
Desk
Wood
Cushion
Hard
Rocking
Bench
BREAD SWEET SLEEP CHAIR
Critical lure
Roediger & McDermott (1995)
Average recall for
studied words:
65%
Avg recall for
studied words
from middle of list:
40%
False memory for
critical lure: 40% 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Serial Position Curve for Studied Words
Roediger & McDermott (1995)
Recognition results: Recognition (below): 4 = sure old, 3 = probably old,
2 = probably new, 1 = sure new
OLD New Confid
4 3 3&4 2 1 Rating
Studied .75 .11 .86 .09 .05 3.6
Unrelated .00 .02 .02 .18 .80 1.2
Weak lure .04 .17 .21 .35 .44 1.8
Critical lure .58 .26 .84 .08 .08 3.3
R&M ’95: Expmt 1
Recognition results
Avg rating (where 4=sure old): studied=3.6 vs. Critical lure=3.3 (ns)
R&M ’95: Experiment 2
Replicate to wider set of materials
Add remember/know judgment
Study:
16 lists of 15 words (total of 24 lists created)
8 lists: immediate free recall
8 lists: math problems in between
Test:
Recognition test: remember/know judgment
Awareness question: “know what study is about?”
Roediger & McDermott (1995)
Exp2
Average
recall for
studied
words: 62%
Avg recall of
critical lure:
55%
R&M ’95: Expmt 2
Recognition results
Recall critical word: 55%
Overall R K
Studied
Study & recall .79 .57 .22
Study & math .65 .41 .24
Non-studied .11 .02 .09
Critical lure
Study & recall .81 .58 .23
Study & math .72 .38 .34
Non-studied .16 .03 .13
R&M ’95: Expmt 2
Greater recognition for critical lure if produced it
during recall?
Only examine study & recall condition
Free recall Overall R K
Studied
Produced .62 .98 .79 .19
Not prod .38 .50 .26 .24
Critical lure
Produced .55 .93 .73 .20
Not prod .45 .65 .38 .27
Formation of false memories
Implicit-associative explanation
Think of associated word during study (spreading activation)
Source monitoring
Confuse when thought of item (study or recall)
Processing fluency
Familiarity effect
“Know” response: easily comes to mind without specifics
Fuzzy-trace theory
Remember general gist (schema) instead of specifics
Retroactive interference
Misinformation acceptance
Variables that affect FM
Age
IQ
Memory
Knowledge
Self-esteem
Stress
Compliance
Time delay
Repeated attempts of recall
Recent DRM publications
N = 115 in PsycINFO
Imagery encoding effects on memory in the DRM paradigm: A test of competing
predictions.
Children and adults are differentially affected by presentation modality in the
DRM paradigm
Mood-congruent false memories in the DRM paradigm
Implicit false memory in the DRM paradigm: Effects of amnesia, encoding
instructions, and encoding duration
How does the extraversion personality trait influence false recall with the drm
paradigm
Visual false memories in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).?
Caffeine's effects on true and false memory.
False memory propensity in people reporting recovered memories of past lives.
Influence of suggestion in the DRM paradigm: What state of consciousness is
associated with false memory?
A cognitive neuropsychological approach to false memory: Korsakoff patients
and the DRM paradigm.
Dehon & Bredart (2004)
Question “whether the higher rates of false memories in older adults occurred because they were less likely to monitor the source of the CL (“critical lure”) during remembering.”
Method – experiment 1 Phase 1
List (15 words); 30s distractor; recall (any order w/o guess)
Phase 2 Rate confidence of recalled words (5pt scale)
Phase 3 Write any words that came to mind but not in study list
Repeat while examining recalled lists (from phase 1)
Phase 4 Rating for words from phase 3 (on a 5pt scale)
Dehon & Bredart (2004)
Question
“whether failure to engage in source-monitoring
processes spontaneously could account for older
adults’ pattern of performance”
Method – experiment 2
Added “strong warnings” before encoding phase
Between-Ss manipulation: warned vs unwarned
Dehon & Bredart (2004) General discussion
Older adults vs yng adults recalled fewer studied items; and more false CLs
Confidence ratings higher for studied items vs CLs for yng
Confidence ratings for studied and CL equal for older adults
Equal activation of CLs for yng/old: yng recall them during 3rd phase, old recall 1st phase
Older: failure to recall source of info (CL) –> source monitoring deficit
Did older forget non-occurrence of CL?
Strong warnings helped yng but not older adults
Conclusion: encoding or retrieval problem?
Gallo, Roberts, & Seamon (1997)
Will a warning reduce FM?
Study: DRM lists
Groups:
Uninformed: remember as many words as possible
Cautious: minimize false alarms, don’t guess
Forewarned: provided an example of false critical lures, told to not produce FM
Recognition test
Overall R K
Uninformed
Studied .76 .52 .24
Uninformed
Critical lure .81 .55 .27
Cautious
Studied .65 .41 .24
Cautious
Critical lure .74 .37 .38
Forewarned
Studied .63 .34 .28
Forewarned
Critical lure .46 .19 .28
Gallo, Roberts, & Seamon (1997)
Rybash & Hrubi-Bopp (1997)
Participants: 1st graders, college students, older adults
Study phase: 10 DRM lists (12 words/list)
After each list:
Generate condition: word associated with list
Control condition: word associated with misc. category
Test phase: free recall (avoid guessing)
HYP:
Generate: reduce FM if source memory intact
Rybash & Hrubi-Bopp (1997)
FALSE
Targets
TRUE
Targets
Generate Control Generate Control
Children .52 .19 .35 .33
College .42 .50 .63 .66
Older .58 .33 .47 .46