Role of memory strength in reality monitoring decisions: evidence from source attribution biases.

Reality monitoring of verbal memories was compared with decisions about pictorial memories in this study. Experiment 1 showed an advantage in memory for imagined over perceived words and a bias to respond "perceived" on false alarms. Experiment 2 showed the opposite pattern: an advantage in memory for perceived pictures and a bias to respond "imagined" on false alarms. Participants attribute false alarms to whichever class of memories has the weakest trace strengths. The relative strength of memories of imagined and perceived objects was manipulated in Experiments 3 and 4, yielding changes in source attribution biases that were predicted by the strength heuristic. All 4 experiments generalize the mirror effect (an inverse relationship between patterns of hits and false alarms commonly found on recognition tests) to reality monitoring decisions. Results suggest that under some conditions differences between the strength of memories for perceived and imagined events, rather than differences in qualitative characteristics, are used to infer memory source.

[1]  Mary Ann Foley,et al.  Cognitive operations and decision bias in reality monitoring , 1981 .

[2]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[3]  M. Johnson,et al.  Aging and qualitative characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined complex events. , 1990, Psychology and aging.

[4]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  An illusion of memory: false recognition influenced by unconscious perception , 1989 .

[5]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[6]  L. Jacoby.  On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution , 1978 .

[7]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Retrieval without Recollection: An Experimental Analysis of Source Amnesia , 1984 .

[8]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[9]  D. L. Hintzman.  On explaining the mirror effect. , 1994 .

[10]  G. Bower,et al.  Eliciting cryptomnesia: unconscious plagiarism in a puzzle task. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Age-related changes in confusion between memories for thoughts and memories for speech. , 1983, Child development.

[12]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[13]  S. Guttenplan.  Mind and language , 1975 .

[14]  M. Glanzer,et al.  Analysis of the word-frequency effect in recognition memory , 1976 .

[15]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. , 1988 .

[16]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[17]  F. Craik,et al.  Age differences in memory for item and source information. , 1987, Canadian journal of psychology.

[18]  John Brown,et al.  Recall and Recognition , 1976 .

[19]  J. Wixted.  Subjective memorability and the mirror effect. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  R. Greene.  Mirror effect in order and associative information: Role of response strategies. , 1996 .

[22]  A. Yonelinas.  Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evidence for a dual-process model. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Mary Ann Foley,et al.  Pictures and images: Spatial and temporal information compared , 1982 .

[24]  M. Glanzer,et al.  Attention/likelihood theory: reply to Hintzman (1994). , 1994, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[25]  Marcia K. Johnson,et al.  Qualitative effects of rehearsal on memories for perceived and imagined complex events. , 1988 .

[26]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Direct versus indirect tests of memory for source: judgments of modality. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Richard L. Marsh,et al.  Item availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two paradigms of unconscious plagiarism. , 1995 .

[28]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[29]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Memorability, Word Frequency and Negative Recognition* , 1977 .

[30]  H.G. Hoffman,et al.  Virtual-reality monitoring , 1995, Proceedings Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium '95.

[31]  L. Jacoby.  A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory , 1991 .

[32]  M K Johnson,et al.  Aging and source monitoring. , 1989, Psychology and aging.

[33]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory: data and theory. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Becoming Famous Overnight: Limits on the Ability to Avoid Unconscious Influences of the Past , 1989 .

[35]  Hunter G. Hoffman,et al.  Misinformation and Memory: The Creation of New Memories , 1989 .

[36]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[37]  William Hirst,et al.  The amnesic syndrome: Descriptions and explanations. , 1982 .

[38]  Larry L. Jacoby,et al.  The construction of subjective experience: Memory attributions , 1990 .

[39]  D. Stephen Lindsay,et al.  Misleading Suggestions Can Impair Eyewitnesses' Ability to Remember Event Details , 1990 .