Abstract
We examined two different accounts of why studying distinctive information reduces false memories within the DRM paradigm. The impoverished relational encoding account predicts that less memorial information, such as overall familiarity, is elicited by the critical lure after distinctive encoding than after nondistinctive encoding. By contrast, the distinctiveness heuristic predicts that participants use a deliberate retrieval strategy to withhold responding to the critical lures. This retrieval strategy refers to a decision rule whereby the absence of memory for expected distinctive information is taken as evidence for an event’s nonoccurrence. We show that the typical false-recognition suppression effect only occurs when the recognition test is self paced. This suppression effect is abolished when participants make recognition decisions under time pressure, such as within 1 second of seeing the test item. These results are consistent with the distinctiveness heuristic that a time-consuming retrieval strategy is used to reduce false-recognition responses.
References
Arndt, J., &Reder, L. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 1–15.
Balota, D. A., Burgess, G. C., Cortese, M. J., &Adams, D. R. (2002). The word-frequency mirror effect in young, old, and early-stage Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence for two processes in episodic recognition performance.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 199–226.
Benjamin, A. S. (2001). On the dual effects of repetition on false recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 941–947.
Brainerd, C. J., Wright, R., Reyna, V. F., &Mojardin, A. H. (2001). Conjoint recognition and phantom recollection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 307–327.
Brewer, W. F., &Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places.Cognitive Psychology,13, 207–230.
Collins, A., Warnock, E. H., Aiello, N., &Miller, M. L. (1975). Reasoning from incomplete knowledge. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.),Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 383–415). New York: Academic Press.
Dodson, C. S., Koutstaal, W., &Schacter, D. L. (2000). Escape from illusion: Reducing false memories.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 391–397.
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.
Dodson, C. S., &Schacter, D. L. (2002a). Aging and strategic retrieval processes: Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic.Psychology & Aging,17, 405–415.
Dodson, C. S., &Schacter, D. L. (2002b). When false recognition meets metacognition: The distinctiveness heuristic.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 782–803.
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.
Gallo, D. A., Weiss, J. A., &Schacter, D. L. (2004). Reducing false recognition with criterial recollection tests: Distinctiveness heuristic versus criterion shifts.Journal of Memory & Language,51, 473–493.
Hege, A. C. G., &Dodson, C. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: Evidence for both impoverished relationalencoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 787–795.
Hicks, J. L., &Marsh, R. L. (1999). Attempts to reduce the incidence of false recall with source monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1195–1209.
Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 1–18.
Hintzman, D. L., Caulton, D. A., &Levitin, D. J. (1998). Retrieval dynamics in recognition and list discrimination: Further evidence of separate processes of familiarity and recall.Memory & Cognition,26, 449–462.
Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.
sJacoby, L. L. (1999). Ironic effects of repetition: Measuring age-related differences in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 3–22.
Jenkins, J. R., Neale, D. C., &Deno, S. L. (1967). Differential memory for picture and word stimuli.Journal of Educational Psychology,58, 303–307.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.
Johnson, M. K., Kounios, J., &Reeder, J. A. (1994). Time-course studies of reality monitoring and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1409–1419.
Joordens, S., &Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1534–1555.
McElree, B., Dolan, P. O., &Jacoby, L. L. (1999). Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: A time course analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 563–582.
McEvoy, C. L., Nelson, D. L., &Komatsu, T. (1999). What is the connection between true and false memories? The differential roles of interitem associations in recall and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 1177–1194.
Mulligan, N., &Hirshman, E. (1995). Speed-accuracy trade-offs and the dual process model of recognition memory.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 1–18.
Nobel, P. A., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Retrieval processes in recognition and cued recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 384–413.
Roediger, H. L., III,Balota, D. A., &Watson, J. M. (2001). Spreading activation and the arousal of false memories. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.),The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 95–115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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.
Roediger, H. L., III,Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., &Gallo, D. A. (2001). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 385–407.
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.
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.
Seamon, J. G., Goodkind, M. S., Dumey, A. D., Dick, E., Aufseeser, M. S., Strickland, S. E., Woulfin, J. R., &Fung, N. S. (2003). “If I didn’t write it, why would I remember it?” Effects of encoding, attention, and practice on accurate and false memory.Memory & Cognition,31, 445–457.
Smith, R. E., &Hunt, R. R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 710–715.
Strack, F., &Bless, H. (1994). Memory for nonoccurrences: Metacognitive and presuppositional strategies.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 203–217.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dodson, C.S., Hege, A.C.G. Speeded retrieval abolishes the false-memory suppression effect: Evidence for the distinctiveness heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 726–731 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196764
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196764
Keywords
- Recognition Test
- False Memory
- False Recognition
- Retrieval Strategy
- False Recall