Abstract

The Deese/Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm has been used extensively to examine false memory. During the study session, participants learn lists of semantically related items (e.g., pillow, blanket, tired, bed), referred to as targets. Critical lures are items which are also associated with the lists but are intentionally omitted from study (e.g., sleep). At test, when asked to remember targets, participants often report false memories for critical lures. Findings from experiments using the DRM show the ease with which false memories develop in the absence of suggestion or misinformation. Given this, it is important to examine factors which influence the generalizability of the findings. One important factor is the persistence of false memory, or how long false memories last. Therefore, we conducted a systemic review to answer this research question: What is the persistence of false memory for specific items in the DRM paradigm? To help answer this question our review had two research objectives: (1) to examine the trajectory of target memory and false memory for critical lures and (2) to examine whether memory for targets exceeded false memory for critical lures. We included empirical articles which tested memory for the same DRM lists with at least two testing sessions. We discuss the results with respect to single-session delays, long-term memory recall and recognition, remember and know judgments for memory, and the effect of development, valence, warning, and connectivity on the trajectory of memory. Overall, the trajectory of targets showed a relatively consistent pattern of decrease across delay. The trajectory of critical lures was inconsistent. The proportion of targets versus critical lures across delay was also inconsistent. Despite the inconsistencies, we conclude that targets and critical lures have a dissimilar trajectory across delay and that critical lures are more persistent than targets. The findings with respect to long-term recall and recognition are consistent with both Fuzzy Trace Theory and Associative-Activation Theory of the DRM effect. The generation of false memory with brief delays (3–4 s) is better explained by Associative-Activation Theory. Examining the connectivity between target items, and critical lures, and the effect that has during study and retrieval, can provide insight into the persistence of false memory for critical lures.

Highlights

  • Imagine that your partner asks you to shop for produce, providing you with a list of fruits to buy

  • The results showed that target recognition decreased from the short-term to the longterm tests while critical lure recognition remained stable across these tests

  • It appears that stimulus valence could influence the trajectory of critical lure memory in the DRM paradigm, with some studies showing inflated critical lures for negative words (Howe et al, 2010; Knott and Shah, 2019; Norris et al, 2019)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Imagine that your partner asks you to shop for produce, providing you with a list of fruits to buy. When you return home with your bounty, your partner asks why you bought oranges. Memory is vulnerable to errors of omission (information that was present initially but not retrieved later), as well as errors of commission (information that was absent initially but was retrieved later). In the latter category, intrusions can arise internally (self-generated; this is the type of error you made when you remembered that oranges were on the list) or externally through post-event information. And externally generated errors fall in the broad category of false memory, there is evidence that the two may be unrelated and have distinct underlying mechanisms (Ost et al, 2013; Bernstein et al, 2018; Nichols and Loftus, 2019)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call