No abstract

In two experiments it was revealed that manipulations that increased recall of studied list items also increased false recall of theme-related, critical nonpresented words. In Experiment 1 subjects listened to a series of short word lists, each containing items associatively related to a theme, while engaging in either semantic or nonsemantic processing. On an immediate free recall test semantic processors demonstrated greater correct recall as well as more illusory memories of critical nonpresented items than nonsemantic processors. In Experiment 2, the short study lists were combined to form longer lists that were presented either blocked by theme or in a random presentation order. Retention interval was also varied as participants were tested either immediately, one week after, or three weeks after the study phase. Presenting the target items in a blocked, as opposed to random, format increased recall accuracy, but this was at the expense of a higher intrusion rate for theme-consistent items. Interestingly, the level of false memories was not affected by retention interval even though typical decrements in the recall of study items were observed over time. The results of these experiments highlight the persistence of the false memory effect, as well as pointing to several factors, primarily semantic processing, that may lead to the creation of false memories. Interpretations are offered within the theoretical frameworks of source monitoring and fuzzy trace theory.

In 2 experiments, the authors examined the effects of schemas on the subjective experience of remembering. Participants entered a room that was set up to look like a graduate student's office under intentional or incidental learning conditions. They later took a recognition memory test that included making remember-know judgments. In Experiment 1, they were tested during the same session; in Experiment 2 they were tested either during the same session or after a 48-hr delay. Consistent with the authors' predictions, memory for atypical objects was especially likely to be experienced in the remember sense. In addition, false remember judgments rose dramatically after the 48-hr delay, especially for participants in the incidental learning condition. Results are discussed in terms of schema theory, fuzzy-trace theory, and the distinctiveness heuristic.

a b s t r a c tShowups -when a single suspect is presented to an eyewitness -are thought to be a more suggestive procedure than traditional lineups by the U.S. Supreme Court and social science researchers. The present experiment examined the impact of retention interval on showup identifications, because immediate showups might be no worse than, and perhaps even better than, a lineup conducted after a delay. Participants (N = 1584) viewed a mock-crime video and then were presented with a showup or a simultaneous lineup, either immediately or a 48 h delay. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses revealed that a showup never resulted in better identification accuracy than a lineup. We conclude with a discussion of whether showups should ever be used.

Showups (a one-person identification) were compared to both simultaneous and sequential lineups that varied in lineup fairness and the position of the suspect in the lineup. We reanalyzed data from a study by Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and Goodsell (2009), which included simultaneous and sequential lineups, and using the same stimuli and procedures, collected new data using showup identifications. Performance was compared using ROC analysis, which is superior to traditional measures such as correct and false identification rates, and probative value measures. ROC analysis showed that simultaneous lineups consistently produced more accurate identification evidence than showups, but sequential lineups were sometimes no more accurate than showups, and were never more accurate than simultaneous lineups. These results supported prior suppositions regarding the suggestiveness of showups, revealed a misconception about the superiority of sequential lineups, and demonstrated why eyewitness identification procedures need to be evaluated using ROC analyses.