1 / 14

The Effects of Restriction of Recognition on False Memory

The Effects of Restriction of Recognition on False Memory. Annamarie Elmer, Holly Heindselman, Rachel Robertson Hanover College. Introduction. Prior experience, environmental and personal factors influence memory recall

quinto
Download Presentation

The Effects of Restriction of Recognition on False Memory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effects of Restriction of Recognition on False Memory Annamarie Elmer, Holly Heindselman, Rachel Robertson Hanover College

  2. Introduction • Prior experience, environmental and personal factors influence memory recall • False memories created by leading questions, hypnosis, guided imagery, and encouragementWarnings affect what people remember • When explicitly told what to remember, false memory recall and recognition is reduced • May be a level of processing that happens when storing information • Tend to remember things better if stored in a meaningful way (Neuschatz, Benoit, & Payne, 2003; Solso et al., 2008)

  3. Introduction Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (1995) • Participants study list of words that fit theme • List of words to recall original themed words • Original, one special distracter, and regular distracter words • Participants just as likely to choose the special distracter as the original words • Suggests participants not storing presented words in isolation but ingroups • Words abstracted when stored in memory • Are connected to each other • Words that fit the theme of previously learned words activated  leads to false memories(Solso, MacLin, & MacLin, 2008)

  4. Introduction • Theories of false memories (Arndt & Gould, 2006) • Error-inflating process • Error editing process • Manipulated variables of how many associations were studied, how many times that item was presented, how much time participants were able to study the words, and how strongly those associations between the words were • Found more words participants were presented caused higher false memory • Stronger the strength between the associations the higher false memory was • Suggests mechanism in the cognitive system that causes one to make either more mistakes in memory or fewer mistakes in memory

  5. Hypothesis • The more restricted a participant’s word choice, the greater the likelihood that the participant will correctly choose words presented in the original list. • When participants are more restricted in the number of words they are allowed to choose, the special distracter would be chosen less often.

  6. Participants • Small Midwestern college • N = 30 • 14 with visual correction • Age 19-22 (M = 20.9 yrs.) • 18 females, 12 males • All Caucasian

  7. Equipment • Gateway E4300 computerswith a Pentium 4 Processor using LCD monitors, model number FDP1565, that were 306 mm in width with resolutions set at 1024 x 780 • Cog lab False memory experiment • Cognition Laboratory website (Krantz, 2008) • Program run using Java

  8. Stimuli • IV: # of words allowed to choose • 4 words • 7 words • 15 words • Size 14 font • 15 words displayed for 1.5 sec • All other settings were default of the program

  9. Procedure • Informed consent • Demographics then read instructions • Words presented in the middle of the screen • Gray box appears with 16 words in all • 7 from original list • 1 special distracter • 8 regular distracters • Completed 6 trials

  10. Results • One-way ANOVA • PWR, PDR, PSDR • PWR differed significantly over 3 conditions(2,29) = 21.37, p < .001 • Post-hoc t-test between 7 and 15 not sig., p < .05

  11. Results • Proportion of special distracter recognition also differed significantly across the three amounts F (2,27) = 10.5, p < .001 • Comparisons for the proportion of special distracter recognition was significant between condition four and condition seven t (19) = 4.49, • p <.001

  12. Discussion • Word recognition  Hypothesis not supported • Opposite direction then expected • No sig. difference b/w 7 and 15 • Spreading activation theory • More restricted one is in recognition, the worse the ability to extract single words from the overall chunk • After a certain point, the extraction from chunking is no longer affected • Supports the abstraction theory of long term memory

  13. Discussion • Special distracter recognition  Hypothesis supported • Less SD were chosen as participants were more restricted in their choice of words. • No significance difference between 7 and 15 words • Further support for abstraction theory of LTM

  14. Future Research • More diverse population • Age, race, gender • Different program than Java • Finding that cutoff point of ability of extraction from chunking • See if there were any recency effects by adding a prolonged delay • Keeping track of which words were chosen

More Related