Cargando…

A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition

Memory interference theories hold that exposure to more similar information to a target item impairs memory of the target item. The dud effect refers to the finding in eyewitness lineup identification that fillers dissimilar to the suspect cause more false identification of the suspect than similar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jou, Jerwen, Hwang, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8939492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35318582
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02083-3
_version_ 1784672736847593472
author Jou, Jerwen
Hwang, Mark
author_facet Jou, Jerwen
Hwang, Mark
author_sort Jou, Jerwen
collection PubMed
description Memory interference theories hold that exposure to more similar information to a target item impairs memory of the target item. The dud effect refers to the finding in eyewitness lineup identification that fillers dissimilar to the suspect cause more false identification of the suspect than similar fillers, contrary to the interference concept. Previous studies on the Deese–Roediger–McDermott false memory typically showed a testing priming effect that a larger number of studied items presented at test leads to a higher level of false recognition of the critical lure (CL). In the present study, either all, or all but one studied item were replaced by unrelated distractors at test. Subjects made more false recognitions of the CL in the no- or only-one-studied item than in the multiple-studied-item condition, supporting the dud-effect account. The slower response time in the “dud” condition suggested a deliberate, monitoring-like approach taken by subjects in that condition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8939492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89394922022-03-23 A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition Jou, Jerwen Hwang, Mark Psychon Bull Rev Brief Report Memory interference theories hold that exposure to more similar information to a target item impairs memory of the target item. The dud effect refers to the finding in eyewitness lineup identification that fillers dissimilar to the suspect cause more false identification of the suspect than similar fillers, contrary to the interference concept. Previous studies on the Deese–Roediger–McDermott false memory typically showed a testing priming effect that a larger number of studied items presented at test leads to a higher level of false recognition of the critical lure (CL). In the present study, either all, or all but one studied item were replaced by unrelated distractors at test. Subjects made more false recognitions of the CL in the no- or only-one-studied item than in the multiple-studied-item condition, supporting the dud-effect account. The slower response time in the “dud” condition suggested a deliberate, monitoring-like approach taken by subjects in that condition. Springer US 2022-03-22 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8939492/ /pubmed/35318582 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02083-3 Text en © The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Brief Report
Jou, Jerwen
Hwang, Mark
A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
title A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
title_full A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
title_fullStr A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
title_full_unstemmed A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
title_short A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
title_sort memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a drm false memory result: fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8939492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35318582
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02083-3
work_keys_str_mv AT joujerwen amemoryinterferenceversusthedudeffectaccountofadrmfalsememoryresultfewerrelatedtargetsattesthighercriticallurefalserecognition
AT hwangmark amemoryinterferenceversusthedudeffectaccountofadrmfalsememoryresultfewerrelatedtargetsattesthighercriticallurefalserecognition
AT joujerwen memoryinterferenceversusthedudeffectaccountofadrmfalsememoryresultfewerrelatedtargetsattesthighercriticallurefalserecognition
AT hwangmark memoryinterferenceversusthedudeffectaccountofadrmfalsememoryresultfewerrelatedtargetsattesthighercriticallurefalserecognition