Literature DB >> 26105976

List blocking and longer retention intervals reveal an influence of gist processing for lexically ambiguous critical lures.

Mark J Huff1, Jaimie McNabb2, Keith A Hutchison2.   

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined veridical and false memory for lists of associates from two meanings (e.g., stumble, trip, harvest, pumpkin, etc.) that converged upon a single, lexically ambiguous critical lure (e.g., fall), in order to compare the activation-monitoring and fuzzy-trace false memory accounts. In Experiment 1, we presented study lists that were blocked or alternated by meaning (within subjects), followed by a free recall test completed immediately or after a 2.5-min delay. Correct recall was greater for blocked than for alternated lists. Critical-lure false recall was greater for blocked lists on an immediate test, whereas both list types produced equivalent false recall on a delayed test. In Experiment 2, lists blocked and alternated by meaning were presented via a between-subjects design, in order to eliminate possible list-type carryover effects. Correct recall replicated the result from Experiment 1; however, blocking lists increased false recall on delayed, but not on immediate, tests. Across the experiments, clustering correct recall by meaning increased across the delay selectively for the alternated lists. Our results suggest that thematic (i.e., gist) processes are influential for false recall, especially following a delay, a pattern consistent with fuzzy-trace theory.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARC clustering; Blocking; False memory; Lexical ambiguity; Retention interval

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26105976      PMCID: PMC4721219          DOI: 10.3758/s13421-015-0533-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  31 in total

1.  Factors that determine false recall: a multiple regression analysis.

Authors:  H L Roediger; J M Watson; K B McDermott; D A Gallo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-09

2.  False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: effects of retention interval and level of processing.

Authors:  A Thapar; K B McDermott
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-04

3.  Source attributions and false memories: a test of the demand characteristics account.

Authors:  J M Lampinen; J S Neuschatz; D G Payne
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-03

4.  How Does Distinctive Processing Reduce False Recall?

Authors:  R Reed Hunt; Rebekah E Smith; Kathryn R Dunlap
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 3.059

5.  The generation effect: a meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Sharon Bertsch; Bryan J Pesta; Richard Wiscott; Michael A McDaniel
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-03

6.  The strategic nature of false recognition in the DRM paradigm.

Authors:  Michael B Miller; Scott A Guerin; George L Wolford
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 7.  Source monitoring.

Authors:  M K Johnson; S Hashtroudi; D S Lindsay
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  False recall in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm: The roles of gist and associative strength.

Authors:  David R Cann; Ken McRae; Albert N Katz
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 2.143

9.  All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 3.059

10.  Effects of distinctive encoding on correct and false memory: a meta-analytic review of costs and benefits and their origins in the DRM paradigm.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner; Jonathan M Fawcett
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04
View more
  3 in total

1.  How Fuzzy-Trace Theory Predicts True and False Memories for Words, Sentences, and Narratives.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Jonathan C Corbin; Rebecca B Weldon; Charles J Brainerd
Journal:  J Appl Res Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-03-01

2.  Assessing Boundary Conditions of the Testing Effect: On the Relative Efficacy of Covert vs. Overt Retrieval.

Authors:  Max L Sundqvist; Timo Mäntylä; Fredrik U Jönsson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-06-21

3.  Reducing False Recognition in the Deese-Roediger/McDermott Paradigm: Related Lures Reveal How Distinctive Encoding Improves Encoding and Monitoring Processes.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner; Matthew R Gretz
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-11-20
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.