TY - JOUR
T1 - A memory-interference versus the “dud”-effect account of a DRM false memory result
T2 - Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition
AU - Jou, Jerwen
AU - Hwang, Mark
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedbacks. Correspondence can be sent to Jerwen Jou, Department of Psychological Science, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1202 West University Drive, Edinburg, TX 78539-2999, email: jerwen.jou@utrgv.edu
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Psychonomic Society, Inc.
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Memory interference theories hold that exposure to more similar information to a target item impairs memory of the target item. The dud effect refers to the finding in eyewitness lineup identification that fillers dissimilar to the suspect cause more false identification of the suspect than similar fillers, contrary to the interference concept. Previous studies on the Deese–Roediger–McDermott false memory typically showed a testing priming effect that a larger number of studied items presented at test leads to a higher level of false recognition of the critical lure (CL). In the present study, either all, or all but one studied item were replaced by unrelated distractors at test. Subjects made more false recognitions of the CL in the no- or only-one-studied item than in the multiple-studied-item condition, supporting the dud-effect account. The slower response time in the “dud” condition suggested a deliberate, monitoring-like approach taken by subjects in that condition.
AB - Memory interference theories hold that exposure to more similar information to a target item impairs memory of the target item. The dud effect refers to the finding in eyewitness lineup identification that fillers dissimilar to the suspect cause more false identification of the suspect than similar fillers, contrary to the interference concept. Previous studies on the Deese–Roediger–McDermott false memory typically showed a testing priming effect that a larger number of studied items presented at test leads to a higher level of false recognition of the critical lure (CL). In the present study, either all, or all but one studied item were replaced by unrelated distractors at test. Subjects made more false recognitions of the CL in the no- or only-one-studied item than in the multiple-studied-item condition, supporting the dud-effect account. The slower response time in the “dud” condition suggested a deliberate, monitoring-like approach taken by subjects in that condition.
KW - DRM test list composition effect
KW - Dud effects and false memory
KW - Dud effects in DRM paradigm
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126892399&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3758/s13423-022-02083-3
DO - 10.3758/s13423-022-02083-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 35318582
AN - SCOPUS:85126892399
SN - 1069-9384
VL - 29
SP - 1397
EP - 1404
JO - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
JF - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
IS - 4
ER -