Abstract
ABSTRACT The dual-recollection model has been successfully applied in research on memory for truth and falsity, suggesting that “true” feedback is better recollected than “false” feedback. We used this approach to test whether the Cartesian or the Spinozan model would be a better framework to describe processes underlying memory for truth and falsity. Our sample consisted of 108 students, who performed the conjoint recognition test under: no-load, refreshing-interference or rehearsal-interference conditions. We found no difference in the rate of falsely attributing “true” label to false sentences than vice versa under cognitive load, which supported the Cartesian model. Multinomial processing tree model analyses confirmed better context memory for true than false sentences in no-load condition. Cognitive load mostly influenced context recollection for true sentences, with nonsignificant effects on context recollection for false sentences, which contradicts the Spinozan model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
