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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |