Distinctive encoding of a subset of DRM lists yields not only benefits, but also costs and spillovers

Abstract

Prior research has emphasized that performing distinctive encoding on a subset of lists in the DRM paradigm suppresses false recognition; we show that its benefits can be mitigated by costs and spillover effects. Within groups read half the DRM lists and solved anagrams for the other half using a strategy that emphasized either item-specific or relational processing. Their recognition was compared to three pure-list control groups (read, item-specific generation, relational generation). Correct recognition in the within groups showed a benefit for generate items and a cost for read items, resulting in little net improvement relative to pure reading. False recognition in the within groups was reduced following item-specific vs. relational generation, but there was again little net improvement. Most surprisingly, false recognition in the within groups was greater for generate than read lists. This pattern suggests that relational processing of read lists spilled over to generate lists, boosting false recognition for generate lists. Distinctive encoding of a subset of items does not appear to globally improve memory accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Arndt, J., & Reder, L. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(02)00518-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Begg, I., & Snider, A. (1987). The generation effect: Evidence for generalized inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertsch, S., Pesta, B. J., Wiscott, R., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The generation effect: A meta-analytic review. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bodner, G. E., Huff, M. J., Lamontagne, R. W., & Azad, T. (2017). Getting at the source of distinctive encoding effects in the DRM paradigm: evidence from signal-detection measures and source judgments. Memory, 25, 642–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1205094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bodner, G. E., Taikh, A., & Fawcett, J. M. (2014). Assessing the costs and benefits of production in recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0485-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2002). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(1), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fawcett, J. M. (2013). The production effect benefits performance in between-subject designs: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 142, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Foley, M. A., Wozniak, K. H., & Gillum, A. (2006). Imagination and false memory inductions: Investigating the role of process, content and source of imaginations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(9), 1119–1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Forrin, N. D., Groot, B., & MacLeod, C. M. (2016). The d-prime directive: Assessing costs and benefits in recognition by dissociating mixed-list false alarm rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1090–1111. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gallo, D. A. (2004). Using recall to reduce false recognition: Diagnostic and disqualifying monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gallo, D. A. (2006). Associative illusions of memory: False memory research in DRM and related tasks. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gunter, R. W., Bodner, G. E., & Azad, T. (2007). Generation and mnemonic encoding induce a mirror effect in the DRM paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hege, A. C. G., & Dodson, C. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: Evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huff, M. J., & Aschenbrenner, A. J. (2018). Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model. Memory & Cognition, 46, 1287–1301. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0837-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huff, M. J., & Bodner, G. E. (2013). When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huff, M. J., & Bodner, G. E. (2014). All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Huff, M. J., & Bodner, G. E. (2019). Item-specific and relational processing both improve recall accuracy in the DRM paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818801427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Huff, M. J., Bodner, G. E., & Fawcett, J. M. (2015). Effects of distinctive encoding on correct and false memory: A meta-analytic review of costs and benefits and their origins in the DRM paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0648-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hunt, R. R. (2006). The concept of distinctiveness in memory research. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 3–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90138-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hunt, R. R., & Seta, C. E. (1984). Category size effects in recall: The roles of relational and individual item information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.3.454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hunt, R. R., Smith, R. E., & Dunlap, K. R. (2011). How does distinctive processing reduce false recall? Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.06.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hunt, R. R., & Worthen, J. B. (2006). Distinctiveness and memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.001.0001.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Israel, L., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Pictorial encoding reduces false recognition of semantic associates. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(4), 577–581. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McCabe, D. P., Presmanes, A. G., Robertson, C. L., & Smith, A. D. (2004). Item-specific processing reduces false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1074–1079. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCabe, D. P., & Smith, A. D. (2006). The distinctiveness heuristic in false recognition and false recall. Memory, 14(5), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600624564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McDaniel, M., & Einstein, G. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid. The importance of distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.1.54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Oliver, M. C., Bays, R. B., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2016). False memories and the DRM paradigm: Effects of imagery, list, and test type. The Journal of General Psychology, 143(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022139.2015.1110558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roediger, H. L., III, Balota, D., & Watson, J. (2001a). Spreading activation and arousal of false memories. In H. L. I. I. I. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 95–115). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roediger, H. L., III, Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001b). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schacter, D. L., Israel, L., & Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory & Cognition, 19(6), 523–542. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 710–715. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. Huff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no competing interests.

Ethical standards

The studies reported were approved by the University of Calgary Research Ethics Board (Protocol #6684) and found to be in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration ethical principles.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals who participated in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huff, M.J., Bodner, G.E. & Gretz, M.R. Distinctive encoding of a subset of DRM lists yields not only benefits, but also costs and spillovers. Psychological Research 85, 280–290 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01241-y

Download citation