Normative study of theme identifiability: Instructions with and without explanation of the false memory effect

Abstract

False-memory illusions have been widely studied using the Deese/Roediger-McDermott paradigm (DRM). In this paradigm, words semantically related to a single nonpresented critical word are studied. In a later memory test, critical words are often falsely recalled and recognized. The present normative study was conducted to measure the theme identifiability of 60 associative word lists in Spanish that include six words (e.g., stove, coat, blanket, scarf, chill, and bonnet) that are simultaneously associated with three critical words (e.g., HEAT, COLD, and WINTER; Beato & Díez, Psicothema, 26, 457-463, 2011). Different levels of backward associative strength were used in the construction of the DRM lists. In addition, we used two types of instructions to obtain theme identifiability. In the without-explanation condition, traditional instructions were used, requesting participants to write the theme list. In the with-explanation condition, the false-memory effect and how the lists were built were explained, and an example of a DRM list and critical words was shown. Participants then had to discover the critical words. The results showed that all lists produced theme identifiability. Moreover, some lists had a higher theme identifiability rate (e.g., 61 % for the critical words LOVE, BOYFRIEND, COUPLE) than others (e.g., 24 % for CITY, PLACE, VILLAGE). After comparing the theme identifiabilities in the different conditions, the results indicated higher theme identifiability when the false-memory effect was explained than without such an explanation. Overall, these new normative data provide a useful tool for those experiments that, for example, aim to analyze the wide differences observed in false memory with DRM lists and the role of theme identifiability.

The Role of Language Proficiency in False Memory: A Mini Review

“…The DRM paradigm has been extensively used to study the mechanisms underlying false memories by manipulating variables such as backward and forward associative strength (e.g., Brainerd and Wright, 2005;Arndt, 2012Arndt, , 2015Arndt, 2014, 2017), presentation rate (e.g., Seamon et al, 1998;Smith and Kimball, 2012;Sadler et al, 2018), number of words associated to the critical lure (e.g., Arndt, 2010;Flegal and Reuter-Lorenz, 2014), presentation modality (e.g., Mao et al, 2010;Boldini et al, 2013), retrieval time (e.g., Giammattei and Arndt, 2012;Carneiro et al, 2014), attentional demands (e.g., Pérez-Mata et al, 2002;Otgaar et al, 2012), distinctive encoding (e.g., Huff et al, 2015Huff et al, , 2020, warning instructions (e.g., Watson et al, 2004;Carneiro and Fernandez, 2010;Coane et al, 2016), identifiability of the critical lure (e.g., Neuschatz et al, 2003;Carneiro et al, 2009;Beato and Cadavid, 2016), or emotional valence (e.g., Bookbinder and Brainerd, 2016;Hellenthal et al, 2019;Chang et al, 2020), among many others. All these experimental manipulations confirmed the robustness of this paradigm to produce false memories.…”

Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm

“…We anticipated that such extremely low-BAS levels would make it difficult for participants to guess the critical lures. In fact, previous DRM studies with three-critical-lure lists have found a significant correlation between BAS and identifiability of the critical lures ( Beato and Cadavid, 2016 ). Therefore, we expected that the exceptionally low-BAS levels would also make it difficult to resort to recall-to-reject strategies guided by the logic of mutual exclusivity (e.g., identify-to-reject).…”

“…Instead, we think that if the DRM lists included multiples critical lures, a condition used in the present study, it would be more difficult to engage in an identify-to-reject strategy. Second, in previous studies, a positive correlation has been found between BAS and identifiability indexes of the critical lures (e.g., Beato and Cadavid, 2016). That is, critical lures were more easily identifiable as the theme in high-BAS lists than in low-BAS lists.…”

“…Although these results are of interest, the aim of the present study is not to shed light on the role of BAS in false memory, as the extremely low-BAS levels employed here are only used as a proxy for low-identifiability levels. Beato and Cadavid, 2016;Beato, 2016, 2017;Arndt and Beato, 2017;Pitarque et al, 2018). In these previous studies, it is unlikely that participants would have used the logic of mutual exclusivity to reject the critical lures because they would not be able to (1) remember all the studied items or (2) explicitly identify the two or three themes of the list (i.e., critical lures) to reject them.…”

“…With respect to the number of critical lures per list, previous studies have reported that two- or three-critical-lure DRM lists produce robust false memories (e.g., Beato and Díez, 2011 ; Beato et al, 2012 ; Cadavid et al, 2012 ; Beato and Arndt, 2014 , 2017 ; Beato and Cadavid, 2016 ; Cadavid and Beato, 2016 , 2017 ; Arndt and Beato, 2017 ; Pitarque et al, 2018 ). In these previous studies, it is unlikely that participants would have used the logic of mutual exclusivity to reject the critical lures because they would not be able to (1) remember all the studied items or (2) explicitly identify the two or three themes of the list (i.e., critical lures) to reject them.…”