Abstract
The conditions under which multiplication verification (3 × 6 = 12, true or false?) involves product retrieval and comparison or familiarity-based recognition judgements has not been clearly established. In two experiments examining verification of single-digit multiplication problems, we used Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF), a signature of retrieval use, as an index of product retrieval in multiplication verification. In Experiment 1, 72 adults practiced multiplication either in a production format or in a verification format and then were tested on corresponding addition and control problems. The results showed RIF (i.e., slower answer production for addition problems whose multiplication counterparts had been practiced) in both the production-practice and the verification-practice groups, but RIF was stronger following true than false verification. Experiment 2 tested verification with related-false and unrelated-false products. Related-false equations produced longer RTs than unrelated false equations. Practice of true, related-false and unrelated-false multiplication equations all produced RIF of the addition counterparts but, overall, related-false multiplication equations produced relatively weak RIF. The results indicated that product retrieval mediates multiplication verification even when false answers are weak associative lures and suggest that a retrieve-and-compare process is the default strategy when false answers are at least plausible. We conclude that the presented answer in verification equations act as retrieval-priming stimuli with true equations priming correct answer retrieval and related-false answers interfering with correct answer retrieval.
Highlights
IntroductionIn Experiment 2, eliminating correct-answer primes from the stimulus set eliminated all the false-prime effects except the costs of related primes at the 0-ms inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs)
The conditions under which multiplication verification (3 × 6 = 12, true or false?) involves product retrieval and comparison or familiaritybased recognition judgements has not been clearly established
Do participants typically produce the correct answer during verification or rely on a familiarity-based recognition strategy or plausibility strategy? When false equations may be consistently identified as false on the basis of a salient characteristic or manipulation it is likely that participants do use a familiarity or plausibility check to decide true or false
Summary
In Experiment 2, eliminating correct-answer primes from the stimulus set eliminated all the false-prime effects except the costs of related primes at the 0-ms ISI To explain these findings, Meagher and Campbell (1995) proposed a fast-acting retrieval priming mechanism that yields interference effects for related-false primes and facilitation when the prime is the correct answer. These multiplication retrieval-priming effects were proposed to be automatic consequences of encoding a correct or associatively related numerical prime at the time of product retrieval. Priming and interference effects in multiplication production and verification do not provide strong evidence, that product retrieval is the default strategy for multiplication verification because they might reflect effects of related primes on equation recognition processes (Zbrodoff & Logan, 1990)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
