Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 1074–1079 | Cite as

Item-specific processing reduces false memories

  • David P. MccabeEmail author
  • Alison G. Presmanes
  • Chuck L. Robertson
  • Anderson D. Smith
Brief Reports


We examined the effect of item-specific and relational encoding instructions on false recognition in two experiments in which the DRM paradigm was used (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Type of encoding (item-specific or relational) was manipulated between subjects in Experiment 1 and within subjects in Experiment 2. Decision-based explanations (e.g., the distinctiveness heuristic) predict reductions in false recognition in between-subjects designs, but not in within-subjects designs, because they are conceptualized as global shifts in decision criteria. Memory-based explanations predict reductions in false recognition in both designs, resulting from enhanced recollection of item-specific details. False recognition was reduced following item-specific encoding instructions in both experiments, favoring a memory-based explanation. These results suggest that providing unique cues for the retrieval of individual studied items results in enhanced discrimination between those studied items and critical lures. Conversely, enhancing the similarity of studied items results in poor discrimination among items within a particular list theme. These results are discussed in terms of the item-specific/ relational framework (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993).


False Alarm Rate Recognition Test False Memory False Recognition Critical Lure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arndt, J., &Reder, L. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 17–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dodson, C. S., &Schacter, D. L. (2001). “If I had said it I would have remembered it”: Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 155–161.Google Scholar
  4. Dodson, C. S., &Schacter, D. L. (2002). When false recognition meets metacognition: The distinctiveness heuristic.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 782–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallo, D. A., McDermott, K. B., Percer, J. M., &Roediger, H. L., III (2001). Modality effects in false recall and false recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 105–112.Google Scholar
  7. Hunt, R. R. (2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate memory.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 811–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., &Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy.Annual Review of Psychology,51, 481–537.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Koutstaal, W. (2003). Older adults encode-but do not use-perceptual details: Intentional versus unintentional effects of detail on memory judgments.Psychological Science,14, 189–193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Koutstaal, W., Reddy, C., Jackson, E. M., Prince, S., Cendan, D. L., &Schacter, D. L. (2003). False recognition of abstract versus common objects in older and younger adults: Testing the semantic categorization account.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. {Psychological Review},87, 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCabe, D. P. (2003).Decision-based and memory-based reductions of false recognition in young and older adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  16. McCabe, D. P., &Smith, A. D. (2002). The effect of warnings on false memories in young and older adults.Memory & Cognition,30, 1065–1077.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, M. B., &Wolford, G. L. (1999). Theoretical commentary: The role of criterion shift in false memory.Psychological Review,106, 398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rahhal, T. A., May, C. P., &Hasher, L. (2002). Truth and character: Source that older adults can remember.Psychological Science,13, 101–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schacter, D. L., Cendan, D. L., Dodson, C. S., &Clifford, E. R. (2001). Retrieval conditions and false recognition: Testing the distinctiveness heuristic.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 827–833.Google Scholar
  21. Schacter, D. L., Israel, L., &Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, R. E., &Hunt, R. R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 710–715.Google Scholar
  23. Snodgrass, J. G., &Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stadler, M. A., Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (1999). Norms for word lists that create false memories.Memory & Cognition,27, 494–500.Google Scholar
  25. Stretch, V., &Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strengthbased and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1379–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Toglia, M. P., Neuschatz, J. S., &Goodwin, K. A. (1999). Recall accuracy and illusory memories: When more is less. {Memory},7, 233–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David P. Mccabe
    • 1
  • Alison G. Presmanes
    • 1
  • Chuck L. Robertson
    • 1
  • Anderson D. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta

Personalised recommendations