Abstract
One of the most evidential behavioral results for two memory processes comes from Gardiner and Java (Memory & Cognition, 18, 23–30 1990). Participants provided more “remember” than “know” responses for old words but more know than remember responses for old nonwords. Moreover, there was no effect of word/nonword status for new items. The combination of a crossover interaction for old items with an invariance for new items provides strong evidence for two distinct processes while ruling out criteria or bias explanations. Here, we report a modern replication of this study. In three experiments, (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) with larger numbers of items and participants, we were unable to replicate the crossover. Instead, our data are more consistent with a single-process account. In a fourth experiment (Experiment 3), we were able to replicate Gardiner and Java’s baseline results with a sure–unsure paradigm supporting a single-process explanation. It seems that Gardiner and Java’s remarkable crossover result is not replicable.
Highlights
One major feature in the modern study of memory is a healthy respect for the distinction between different mnemonic processes
Proponents of dual-process theory cite several pillars of behavioral support, including the shape of the receiver operating characteristic (Yonelinas, 1999), the presence of double-dissociations in explicit and implicit recognition tasks (Schacter & Tulving, 1994), speedeffects associated with different processes (Besson, Ceccaldi, Didic, & Barbeau, 2012; McElree, Dolan, & Jacoby, 1999), and the selective influence of critical manipulations in the remember–know–new paradigm (Tulving, 1985)
The prevailing argument of the skeptics is that it is possible to account for the above phenomena with a single process rather than with two distinct processes
Summary
One major feature in the modern study of memory is a healthy respect for the distinction between different mnemonic processes. One impactful distinction is that between conscious recollection and familiarity-based automatic activation (Atkinson & Juola, 1973; Jacoby, 1991; Mandler, 1980; Yonelinas, 2002). Proponents of dual-process theory cite several pillars of behavioral support, including the shape of the receiver operating characteristic (Yonelinas, 1999), the presence of double-dissociations in explicit and implicit recognition tasks (Schacter & Tulving, 1994), speedeffects associated with different processes (Besson, Ceccaldi, Didic, & Barbeau, 2012; McElree, Dolan, & Jacoby, 1999), and the selective influence of critical manipulations in the remember–know–new paradigm (Tulving, 1985). Double dissociations across tasks may be accounted for by a single monotonic performance curve that reflects the operations of a single process (Dunn, 2008) Many of these demonstrations of doubt are contestations of what counts as evidence more than firm findings. Only remember responses are affected by the processing depth manipulation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
