Interrupting recognition memory: Tests of a criterion-change account of the revelation effect

Abstract

The revelationeffect is evidenced by an increase in positive recognition responses when the test probe is immediately preceded by an unrelated problem-solving task. As an alternative to familiarity-based explanations of this effect (Hicks & Marsh, 1998;Westerman & Greene, 1998), Niewiadomski and Hockley (2001) proposed a decision-based account in which it is assumed that the problem-solving task displaces the study list context in working memory, leading subjects to adopt a more liberal recognition criterion. In the present study, we show that the revelation effect is seen when the stimulus materials are pure lists of very rare words or nonwords. In contrast, for mixed lists of common words and very rare words or nonwords, the revelation effect is found for common words but disappears for very rare words and nonwords. We argue that, in mixed lists, the liberal decision bias following the revelation task and the criterion changes between common words and very rare words and nonwords serve to offset each other.

Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift

“…54-55) or just a single, preceding distractor item (McNamara & Diwadkar, 1996). Proponents of within-list criterion shifts take into consideration the fact that continual adjustment of the criterion is posited to be quite demanding of cognitive resources (Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001). These claims are consistent with the growing body of evidence of within-list criterion shifts (Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001;Reder, 1987Reder, , 1988Singer et al, 2002).…”

“…If this effect does reflect a criterion shift, the participants must have adjusted the criterion on an item-byitem basis, because the short-delay and long-delay items were randomly intermixed on the recognition test. Withinlist criterion shifts have been implicated in other recognition phenomena, such as the revelation effect (Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001).…”

“…Despite the presumed strength difference between the red and the blue words and the salience of the manipulation, similar criteria were in effect for the two sets. Stretch and Wixted proposed that cognitive demands might discourage customizing the criterion to each new probe, since it would require nearly constant shifting of the criterion with each new test item (see also Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984;Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001). …”

Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory

“…Previous studies have shown that people are unwilling or incapable of changing response bias from trial to trial when items from different strength classes are intermixed within a test list (Morrell et al, 2002;Stretch & Wixted, 1998). Although one might intuitively predict that people lack the motivation or the information necessary to constantly modify their criterion, trial-to-trial criterion shifts have been observed in other circumstances, such as when the nature of the task changes dramatically from one trial to the next (Heit, Brockdorff, & Lamberts, 2003;Hicks & Marsh, 1998;Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001;Verde & Rotello, 2003) or when typical words are intermixed with unusual classes of items (Whittlesea & Williams, 1998;Windmann & Kutas, 2001;Wixted, 1992). In all of these examples, strength was not separated from other aspects of the task or materials.…”

Strength-based criterion shifts in recognition memory

“…It is noteworthy that theorists have suggested that frequent adjustment of the criterion may be curtailed by the lack of (1) cognitive resources (Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001;Morrell et al, 2002;Stretch & Wixted, 1998b), (2) useful information (Verde & Rotello, 2007), and (3) motivation (Morrell et al, 2002;Verde & Rotello, 2007). Notwithstanding those proposals, there is computational and empirical evidence (Gillund &Shiffrin, 1984, andMcNamara &Diwadkar, 1996, respectively) that criterion placement can be based on a very small number of recent lures or even the single most recent one (see Treisman & Williams, 1984, for a review).…”