Part-set cuing of false memories

Abstract

Part-set cuing inhibition describes the common finding that re-presenting items from a word list can reduce subjects' overall recall performance for studied items. Do part-set cuing effects occur for false memories as well? In the present experiments, subjects studied lists of words drawn from Roediger and McDermott (1995). After studying each list, subjects completed math problems and then recalled the list items either with or without accompanying list cues. In Experiment 1, the recall cues consisted of items drawn randomly from the original list. In Experiment 2, an additional type of cued recall task was added in which the even numbered list items were used as cues. Taken together, these experiments demonstrate robust part-set cuing effects for critical nonpresented items. In addition, they show that whereas recall of critical words is reduced by the presence of cues at test, retrieval cues do not affect critical words and studied words in exactly the same manner.

Retrieval-induced forgetting and part-list cuing in associatively structured lists

“…This finding extends the results from Experiment 1 for critical items' veridical recall to critical items' false recall. It is consistent with the results from very recent work, in which part-list cuing was also found to reduce false recall (Kimball & Bjork, 2002;Reysen & Nairne, 2002).…”

“…We investigatedwhether part-list cuing and retrieval practice have the same or a different influence on critical items' false recall. In two very recent studies, how part-list cuing affects false recall has already been examined (Kimball & Bjork, 2002;Reysen & Nairne, 2002). In both studies, a number of DRM lists were presented to participants.…”

“…However, the reduction in false recall might be the result of inhibition as well. If false recall of the nonstudied critical items reflects activation of these items during study (Collins & Loftus, 1975;Roediger et al, 2001; see also Kimball &Bjork, 2002, andReysen &Nairne, 2002), both the noncritical items and the nonstudied critical ones should be active during cuing and should compete for conscious recall. Following the inhibition view, the presentation of the noncriticalitems as retrieval cues then might lead to covert retrieval of these items, causing retrieval-induced inhibition of the nonstudied critical items and, thus, reducing false recall.…”

Part-list cuing as instructed retrieval inhibition

“…Cuing and retrieval induced the same detrimental effects, on both "critical" items' veridical and "critical" items' false recall. Detrimental effects of partlist cuing on "critical" items' false recall have been reported in other recent studies as well (Kimball & Bjork, 2002;Reysen & Nairne, 2002; but see Marsh, McDermott, & Roediger, 2004). Also, previous studies have shown that retrieval of (Anderson et al, 1994) and cuing with 3 learned category exemplars impairs recall of a category's high-frequency, but not a category's lowfrequency, exemplars.…”

Part-Set Cuing Effects in Younger and Older Adults.

“…This statement is still true today. Researchers remain interested in both the underlying mechanisms and such varied applications as part-set cuing effects in the false memory domain (e.g., Kimball & Bjork, 2002;Marsh, McDermott, & Roediger, 2004;Reysen & Nairne, 2002). In the current research program, we are interested in extending work on part-set cuing to older adults.…”