Effects of Image and Verbal Generation on False Memory

Abstract

The effects of image and verbal generation on false memories in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm were investigated by comparing three experimental conditions (description, image, and image description). False memory rates were reduced when participants received an explicit imagery instruction rather than when they were asked to describe the characteristics of word referents or both imagine and describe referents. Verbal generation is thought to promote the associated processing of list items and thus increase the probability of activating lures during encoding and of falsely remembering. Conversely, self-generated imagery is expected to decrease the probability of falsely recalling and recognizing the lures. Imagery encoding should be used as a distinctiveness heuristic at retrieval for impeding the false recalls/recognitions of the critical items. Nevertheless, when imagery encoding was coupled with a verbal generation task, mental images were no longer sufficiently stringent criteria for reducing false memories. These findings could challenge the conditions of using imagery techniques when people have to remember an event while evoking it in a mental image so as to describe it in greater detail.

Effects of visual imagery on false memories in DRM and misinformation paradigms

“…Our findings revealed false memories effect in DRM and misinformation tasks replicating previous studies (Roediger & McDermott, 1995;Loftus et al, 1978). We found that imaging instruction reduced DRM false memories in line with past findings (Foley, 2012;2006;Gunter et al, 2007;Robin, Ménétrier, & El Haj, 2019;Robin & Mahé, 2015;Robin, 2011;2010). In contrast, it was not possible to conclude that the imaging instruction decreases or increases false memories in the misinformation task.…”

“…These results replicated those found in previous studies showing a constant reduction in false memories with an imaging instruction (Burns, Jenkins, & Dean, 2007, exp.2;Foley, 2012;Foley Wozniak, & Gillum, 2006;Gunter, Bodner, & Azad, 2007;Olszewska & Ulatowska, 2013;Perez-Mata, Read, & Diges, 2002;Robin & Mahé, 2015;Robin et al, 2019).…”

“…The words were presented in order of decreasing associative strength to the non-presented related word. The eight highest associates that could be depicted in a visual image were included in the ten lists (see Robin, 2011;Robin & Mahé, 2015). In previous studies, it was ensured that the imagery value of critical words was high and the same as the imagery value of all the studied words.…”

“…Based on this finding we may wonder whether the factors that modulate false memories have the same impact whatever the experimental paradigm in which false memories are examined. More precisely, results have shown a reduction of false memories in conditions in which participants encoded DRM lists with the instruction to generate a visual image of object designated by each word (Foley, 2012;Foley et al, 2006;Robin, 2011;Robin & Mahé, 2015;Robin, Ménétrier, & El Haj, 2019). In contrast, studies that have examined the effects of visual imaging on misinformation are still sparse.…”

The benefit (and cost) of drawing as an encoding strategy

“…Instead of being asked to “write” the words in half of the DRM sets, participants were asked to “imagine” how the object that the word represents looks. As such, half of the prompt words were “draw” and half were “imagine.” In addition, they were asked to make a rating regarding how easily they could bring to mind a vivid mental image for each of the words in a set, an instruction based on previous work assessing the effects of imagery at encoding (Robin, 2011; Robin & Mahé, 2015). The specific instructions given for the “imagine” task were as follows:Create a mental image of the object that the word represents.…”