False recognition of associates: How robust is the effect?

Abstract

False recognition of nonpresented words that were strong associates of 12 words in a study list was examined. Six lists were read to subjects; each list contained the 12strongest associates to a critical nonpresented word. False-alarm rates to the 6 critical nonpresented words were obtained under several different conditions. The manipulations included varying the level of processing done to the study lists, varying the recognition-test procedure, repeating each of the study lists three times, and mixing the words from the six study lists together. A reliable false-recognition effect for critical nonpresented words was obtained in all conditions. However, the effect was not impervious to all of the manipulations. Significantly lower false recognition was obtained when learning was incidental as well as when the words on the six lists were mixed together. Neither level of processing nor repetition significantly influenced false recognition. This last result is inconsistent with Hintzman's (1988) MINERVA 2 global memory model, but agrees with predictions from Shiffrin, Ratcliff, and Clark's (1990) SAM model. The study ofrecognition memory over the last 10 years has been heavily influenced by a class of models known as global matching models (see, e.g., Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984;Hintzman, 1988;Murdock, 1982). These models posit that recognition of a test item is based on an index of familiarity computed for the item. This familiarity value is calculated by comparing the test item in a parallel fashion with all items in memory. A test item that is similar to several items in memory will have a high familiarity value and most likely will be called "old" on a recognition test. Clark and Gronlund (1996) noted that support for this type of model has come from studies examining false-alarm rates to certain types of non studied items. These studies have demonstrated that false alarms reliably occur to test items semantically similar to studied items. Subjects are much more likely to call a new item "old" if that item is related in meaning to several words on the study list. The false-alarm rate generally increases as a function of the number of list items that are semantically related to a distractor (Hintzman, 1988;Shiffrin, Huber, & Marinelli, 1995). This finding has been referred to as the global similarity effect.The global similarity effect can easily be explained in terms of the global matching models. If memory for a given test item is determined by comparing that item to all studied items in memory, then false alarms should occur for test items that are similar to many items on the study list. Furthermore, as the number ofstudy items simThis research was conducted while A.AT was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Mental Retardation Research Training Grant 5-T32-HD07176-16. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to A. A. Tussing, Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, ilar to a test item increases, false al...

Are children’s memory illusions created differently from those of adults? Evidence from levels-of-processing and divided attention paradigms

“…In contrast, two other studies found few effects of levels-of-processing on true and false memories (Read, 1996;Tussing & Greene, 1997). Specifically, Tussing and Greene (1997) found no effect of levels-of-processing on true and false recognition. However, it has been noted that it was not clear in this study whether levels-of-processing did not affect true and false recognition or was simply not manipulated properly (see Thapar & McDermott, 2001;Toglia et al, 1999).…”

“…Moreover, these effects were obtained regardless of whether recall or recognition measures were used (Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000;Thapar & McDermott, 2001;Toglia et al, 1999). In contrast, two other studies found few effects of levels-of-processing on true and false memories (Read, 1996;Tussing & Greene, 1997). Specifically, Tussing and Greene (1997) found no effect of levels-of-processing on true and false recognition.…”

“…Research with adults using levels-of-processing has produced mixed results concerning the effects on true and false memories (Read, 1996;Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000;Thapar & McDermott, 2001;Toglia, Neuschatz, & Goodwin, 1999;Tussing & Greene, 1997). Three studies have demonstrated that when information is encoded using deep processing, significant increases occur in both true and false memory rates relative to when that same information is processed in a shallow fashion.…”

The effect of alcohol and repetition at encoding on implicit and explicit false memories

“…Repetition as a means of increasing learning has been applied with the DRM paradigm as an experimental manipulation to investigate the mechanisms underlying false memories (Benjamin 2001). Repetition at encoding has been shown to increase false memories (Benjamin 2001), decrease false memories (Tussing and Greene 1997), have no effect on false memories (Tussing and Greene 1999) and affect false memories in an inverted U-shaped function (Seamon et al 2002). As repetition may both increase false memories via increased activation of semantically associated non-studied items, and decrease false memories through increased monitoring, observing the effect of repetition on false memory levels can provide insight into whether activation or monitoring processes are prevailing in memory judgements.…”

The roles of encoding and retrieval processes in associative and categorical memory illusions

“…For example, levels of false recall and false recognition are higher when DRM lists are presented in blocked rather than random sequences (McDermott, 1996;Toglia, Neuschatz, & Goodwin, 1999;Tussing & Greene, 1997) or in long rather than short lists (Robinson & Roediger, 1997). Encoding operations that encourage relational rather than item-specific processing (Hunt & Einstein, 1981) also increase false memories.…”