Effects of survival processing and retention interval on true and false recognition in the DRM and category repetition paradigms

Parker, Andrew; Dagnall, Neil; Abelson, A. R.

doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1511808

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 88 publications

(91 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Raymaekers et al (2014) found the survival advantage was maintained over a period of 24 and 48 h. Although forgetting was observed across all conditions, the magnitude of forgetting was comparable for the survival and control conditions. Other work has found similar effects (Abel & Bäuml, 2013;Munetsugu & Horiuchi, 2015) and extended findings to include location memory (Clark & Bruno, 2016) and detailed recollective memory (Parker et al, 2019). Consequently, the survival processing advantage is preserved over extended delays of at least 48 h and suggests the size of the effect can be maintained across the passage of time.…”

Section: Survival Processing and Memorysupporting

confidence: 54%

“…However, this is inconsistent with the degree of proportional forgetting observed that was greater in the survival condition. In addition, other research in which survival processing produced initially superior memory, did not lead to a greater magnitude of forgetting (Abel & Bäuml, 2013;Clark & Bruno, 2016;Munetsugu & Horiuchi, 2015;Parker et al, 2019;Raymaekers et al, 2014). In these experiments, the degree of forgetting was similar across various encoding conditions, even though retention was higher after survival processing in the pre-delay condition.…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

“…In separate strands of research, both survival processing and R-cues have been shown to increase "remember" (vs. "know") responses in recognition memory and consequently provide information about the contributions of different states of awareness to overall mnemonic outcomes (e.g., Gardiner et al, 1994;Munetsugu & Horiuchi, 2015;Parker et al, 2019). To date, no experiments have considered the combined impact of both survival processing and directed forgetting on remember-know responses on free-recall, thus the present work addresses this limitation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Secondly, to temper the above, one might consider the effects of survival processing on involuntary forgetting after a delay (Abel & Bäuml, 2013;Clark & Bruno, 2016;Munetsugu & Horiuchi, 2015;Parker et al, 2019). In these experiments the magnitude of forgetting that occurred in the survival condition was similar to that of the control conditions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of survival processing on list method directed forgetting

Parker

Parkin

Dagnall

2021

Memory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the effects of directed (intentional) forgetting on information processed for its survival value. Experiment 1 used the list-method directed forgetting procedure in which items processed for their relevance to survival, moving house or pleasantness were followed by the cue to remember or forget. Following the encoding of a second list, free-recall of both lists showed that survival encoding brought about greater remembering (after the remember cue) and forgetting (after the forget cue). Experiment 2 also used the list-method and manipulated mental context reinstatement prior to recall. Although this manipulation was effective in enhancing memory, more directed forgetting was again shown in the survival condition. In both experiments the effects of survival processing were shown also in free-recall "remember" (vs. "know") responses, indicative of the retrieval of associative or contextual details. The mechanisms that might underpin these were evaluated and considered in relation to future work.

show abstract

Section: Survival Processing and Memorysupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of survival processing on list method directed forgetting

Parker

Parkin

Dagnall

2021

Memory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is inconsistent with prior studies that have reported increases in false memory associated with survival processing (Otgaar & Smeets, 2010 ; Howe & Derbish, 2010 ), which have been interpreted such that schema or gist processing underlies the survival processing effect. Parker, Dagnall, and Abelson ( 2018 ) recently found that survival processing increased false memory for lists of highly associated words (i.e., Deese-Roediger-McDermott word lists), whereas it decreased false memory for words with relatively weaker associations (i.e., taxonomic category lists). Thus, one explanation for the decreased false memory in the present study could be that the strength of semantic associations within our word list was in fact relatively low.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival processing modulates the neurocognitive mechanisms of episodic encoding

Forester

Kroneisen

Erdfelder

et al. 2020

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Memories formed in the context of an imagined survival scenario are more easily remembered, but the mechanisms underlying this effect are still under debate. We investigated the neurocognitive processes underlying the survival processing effect by examining event-related potentials (ERPs) during memory encoding. Participants imagined being either stranded in a foreign land and needing to survive, or in an overseas moving (control) scenario, while incidentally encoding a list of words. Words encountered in the survival context were associated with improved recall and reduced false-memory intrusions during a later memory test. Survival processing was associated with an increased frontal slow wave, while there was no effect on the overall P300 amplitude, relative to the control scenario. Furthermore, a subsequent memory effect in the P300 time window was found only in the control scenario. These findings suggest that survival processing leads to a shift away from lower level encoding processes, which are sensitive to motivation and stimulus salience and which were evident in the control scenario, to more active and elaborative forms of encoding. The results are consistent with a richness of encoding account of the survival processing effect and offer novel insights into the encoding processes that lead to enhanced memory for fitness-relevant information.

show abstract

The Trajectory of Targets and Critical Lures in the Deese/Roediger–McDermott Paradigm: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Deese/Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm has been used extensively to examine false memory. During the study session, participants learn lists of semantically related items (e.g., pillow, blanket, tired, bed), referred to as targets. Critical lures are items which are also associated with the lists but are intentionally omitted from study (e.g., sleep). At test, when asked to remember targets, participants often report false memories for critical lures. Findings from experiments using the DRM show the ease with which false memories develop in the absence of suggestion or misinformation. Given this, it is important to examine factors which influence the generalizability of the findings. One important factor is the persistence of false memory, or how long false memories last. Therefore, we conducted a systemic review to answer this research question: What is the persistence of false memory for specific items in the DRM paradigm? To help answer this question our review had two research objectives: (1) to examine the trajectory of target memory and false memory for critical lures and (2) to examine whether memory for targets exceeded false memory for critical lures. We included empirical articles which tested memory for the same DRM lists with at least two testing sessions. We discuss the results with respect to single-session delays, long-term memory recall and recognition, remember and know judgments for memory, and the effect of development, valence, warning, and connectivity on the trajectory of memory. Overall, the trajectory of targets showed a relatively consistent pattern of decrease across delay. The trajectory of critical lures was inconsistent. The proportion of targets versus critical lures across delay was also inconsistent. Despite the inconsistencies, we conclude that targets and critical lures have a dissimilar trajectory across delay and that critical lures are more persistent than targets. The findings with respect to long-term recall and recognition are consistent with both Fuzzy Trace Theory and Associative-Activation Theory of the DRM effect. The generation of false memory with brief delays (3–4 s) is better explained by Associative-Activation Theory. Examining the connectivity between target items, and critical lures, and the effect that has during study and retrieval, can provide insight into the persistence of false memory for critical lures.

show abstract

Effects of survival processing and retention interval on true and false recognition in the DRM and category repetition paradigms

Cited by 3 publications

References 88 publications

Effects of survival processing on list method directed forgetting

Effects of survival processing on list method directed forgetting

Survival processing modulates the neurocognitive mechanisms of episodic encoding

The Trajectory of Targets and Critical Lures in the Deese/Roediger–McDermott Paradigm: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About