Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 485–494 | Cite as

Using Implicit Instructional Cues to Influence False Memory Induction

  • Laura K. Cirelli
  • Joël Dickinson
  • Marie Poirier


Previous research has shown that explicit cues specific to the encoding process (endogenous) or characteristic of the stimuli themselves (exogenous) can be used to direct a reader’s attentional resources towards either relational or item-specific information. By directing attention to relational information (and therefore away from item-specific information) the rate of false memory induction can be increased. The purpose of the current study was to investigate if a similar effect would be found by manipulating implicitly endogenous cues. An instructional manipulation was used to influence the perceptual action participants performed on word stimuli during the encoding of DRM list words. Results demonstrated that the instructional conditions that encouraged faster processing also led to an increased rate of false memory induction for semantically related words, supporting the hypothesis that attention was directed towards relational information. This finding supports the impoverished relational processing account of false memory induction. This supports the idea that implicitly endogenous cues, exogenous cues (like font) or explicitly endogenous cues (like training) can direct attentional resources during encoding.


Impoverished relational processing False memory induction  Word recognition Visual encoding words 


  1. Arndt, J., & Reder, L. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler, K. M., McDaniel, M. A., McCabe, D. P., & Dornburg, C. C. (2010). The influence of distinctive processing manipulations on older adults’ false memory. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(2), 29–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diana, R. A., Reder, L. M., Arndt, J., & Park, H. (2006). Models of recognition: A review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dickinson, J., Cirelli, L., & Szeligo, F. (2013). Do you ‘see’ what I ‘see’? Differentiation of visual action words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. doi: 10.1007/s10936-012-9235-1.
  5. Dickinson, J., & Szeligo, F. (2008). Impact of mental operation instructions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 211–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodson, C. S., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). “If I had said it I would have remembered it”: Reducing false memories with the distinctiveness heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dodson, C. S., & Schacter, D. L. (2002). When false recognition meets metacognition: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 782–803.Google Scholar
  8. Hege, A. C. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: Evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(4), 787–795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hopfinger, J. B., & West, V. M. (2005). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention on cortical visual processing. NeuroImage, 31, 774–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt, R. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loftus, E., Miller, D., & Burns, H. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
  13. McCabe, D. P., Presmanes, A. G., Robertson, C. L., & Smith, A. D. (2004). Item-specific processing reduces false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park, H., Reder, L. M., & Dickison, D. (2005). The effects of word frequency and similarity on recognition judgments: The role of recollection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 568–578.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Roediger, H. L., Balota, D. A., & Watson, J. M. (2001a). In H. L. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), Spreading activation and arousal of false memories. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  16. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814.Google Scholar
  17. Roediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. (2001b). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schacter, D. L., Israel, L., & Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stadler, M. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1999). Norms for word lists that create false memories. Memory & Cognition, 27(3), 494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura K. Cirelli
    • 1
  • Joël Dickinson
    • 1
  • Marie Poirier
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLaurentian UniversitySudburyCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCity UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations