Abstract
During source remembering, selectively emphasizing one source in the retrieval query “Is this item from Source A?” can yield different accuracy than emphasizing the alternate source in “Is this item from Source B?” even if those are the only two possible origins. One account of this cue-framing effect holds that it reflects different active monitoring strategies encouraged by the two cue frames. An item memory misattribution (IMM) model instead assumes that this effect reflects the uncontrolled use of item recognition during confirmatory source judgments, and an IMM model simulation predicted a quantitative relationship between recognition levels and the cue-framing effect. Experiments 1 and 3 confirmed these predictions by using study repetitions to manipulate recognition levels, and Experiments 2 and 3 also demonstrated the effect with new source tasks not previously considered. The data suggest that, in addition to qualitative monitoring strategies, subjects also use the availability of item memory in a heuristic fashion during confirmatory source attributions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Banks, W. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human memory. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 81–99.
Banks, W. P. (2000). Recognition and source memory as multivariate decision processes. Psychological Science, 11, 267–273.
Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 37–60.
Craik, F. I. [M.], & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Dobbins, I. G., Foley, H., Schacter, D. L., & Wagner, A. D. (2002). Executive control during episodic retrieval: Multiple prefrontal processes subserve source memory. Neuron, 35, 989–996.
Dodson, C. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1993). Rate of false source attributions depends on how questions are asked. American Journal of Psychology, 106, 541–557.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huppert, F. A., & Piercy, M. (1976). Recognition memory in amnesic patients: Effect of temporal context and familiarity of material. Cortex, 12, 3–20.
Huppert, F. A., & Piercy, M. (1978). The role of trace strength in recency and frequency judgements by amnesic and control subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 347–354.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513–541.
Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 326–338.
Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115–125.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.
Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Foley, H. J., & Foley, M. A. (1981). Cognitive operations and decision bias in reality monitoring. American Journal of Psychology, 94, 37–64.
Kelley, R., & Wixted, J. T. (2001). On the nature of associative information in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 701–722.
Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 34–53.
Koutstaal, W., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Gist-based false recognition of pictures in older and younger adults. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 555–583.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 391–404.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Test formats change sourcemonitoring decision processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1137–1151.
Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F. I. M., Guez, J., & Kreuger, S. (2005). Divided attention in younger and older adults: Effects of strategy and relatedness on memory performance and secondary task costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 520–537.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
Parks, C. M. (2007). The role of noncriterial recollection in estimating recollection and familiarity. Journal of Memory & Language, 57, 81–100.
Parks, T. E. (1966). Signal-detectability theory of recognition-memory performance. Psychological Review, 73, 44–58.
Qin, J., Raye, C. L., Johnson, M. K., & Mitchell, K. J. (2001). Source ROCs are (typically) curvilinear: Comment on Yonelinas (1999). tJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1110–1115.
Slotnick, S. D., & Dodson, C. S. (2005). Support for a continuous (single-process) model of recognition memory and source memory. Memory & Cognition, 33, 151–170.
Whittlesea, B. W., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 716–732.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health through Grant R01-MH073982 to I.G.D.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dobbins, I.G., McCarthy, D. Cue-framing effects in source remembering: A memory misattribution model. Memory & Cognition 36, 104–118 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.104
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.104