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)

Roediger & McDermott (1995)

When do Ss report critical lure?

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?”

CogLab: Remember-Know

Sp’09 (n = 9)

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) Experiment 1 results

Total proportion of activated CLs .84 .81

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)

Experiment 2 results

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

Real world false memories

Ecological validity of DRM paradigm

Real world examples:

Repressed memories of abuse

False memory syndrome

Eyewitness testimony

How does DRM help us begin to understand

these topics?