However, this argument is not sufficient to affirm that participants are not engaging a mutual exclusivity logic as we also need to consider the possibility that participants apply an identify-to-reject strategy. That is, including extremely low-BAS lists allows us deese hannover virtually eliminate the possibility that participants engage in an identify-to-reject strategy. That is, deese hannover six study items were simultaneously related via backward associative strength or BAS to each of the three critical lures.
Research has suggested that recall-to-reject can work through two different metacognitive processes: 1 participants apply the logic of mutual exclusivity, or 2 participants experience a feeling of contrast between studied items and unstudied critical lures Gallo and Lampinen, Examples of how recall-to-reject can occur following a logic of mutual exclusivity come from studies in which DRM lists are very deese hannover e. With respect to the of critical lures per deese hannover, studies have reported that two- or three-critical-lure DRM lists produce robust false memories e.
When using DRM lists with these characteristics i. The monitoring process can be generally described as a decision process that helps participants allocate the source of mentally activated information, eventually reducing false memory e. Therefore, when using high-BAS lists and presenting three critical lures per list at test, participants could engage in more than one type of editing processes. On the one hand, diagnostic monitoring relies on the expectations generated around the decision making and happens when the critical lure is rejected due to an absence of recollection. A total of undergraduate students, who were native Spanish speakers, voluntarily participated in this experiment We increased the sample size from 32 to 35 participants per group for a total of participants.
Therefore, lists with three critical lures and extremely low BAS would constitute the experimental condition in which we prevented the use of mutual exclusivity logic and, instead, foster a feeling-of-contrast strategy.
However, when participants included in the three-critical-lure condition study high-BAS lists, it might be the case that they could use both feelings of contrast and an identify-to-reject strategy to monitor their memory i. In a subsequent memory task, participants often claim to recall or recognize the critical lure false memories along with the studied items true memories Roediger and McDermott, Numerous experimental manipulations deese hannover revealed that falsely remembered critical lures present highly compelling memorial evidence of the occurrence of the event e.
Our second specific comparison referred to BAS levels in the three-critical-lure condition. Hence, just as in other manipulations that facilitate error-editing processes, overall false recognition rates were expected to be lower in the three-critical-lure condition than in the one-critical-lure condition. Specifically, lists were constructed from Spanish free-association norms Fernandez et al. In that case, participants could reject the critical lures at test by remembering all the studied words of each list i.
These suggest that participants sometimes experience a deese hannover of contrast between items when performing a recognition test. These extremely low-BAS levels served as a proxy for low-identifiability levels.
This finding would show that, in the absence of an identify-to-reject strategy low-BAS listsparticipants whose feelings of contrast were not triggered one-critical-lure condition would show higher false memory than the participants who experienced feelings of contrast three-critical-lure condition.
The two independent variables were of critical lures per list at test one, three and BAS high, low. In this regard, it should be noted that a typical DRM list includes one critical lure and words with high backward associative strength Deese hannover, the association from studied items to the critical lure.
This division is based on the decisional processes around the avoidance of false memory. Despite differences between FTT and AMF, both agree to propose the interplay of two types of processes: error-inflating and error-editing. These findings suggest that, in the DRM context, disqualifying monitoring could be guided by deese hannover feelings of contrast between different types of words.
Two mechanisms could trigger identify-to-reject in these lists. Lists were built to ensure that all the three critical lures e. The main aim of this research was to study error-editing processes in associative false memories and, in particular, the monitoring process, which has been identified as key to reduce false memories e. To test the existence of the feeling-of-contrast strategy, we need a deese hannover that precludes the possibility to apply the logic of mutual exclusivity and allows the feeling-of-contrast strategy.
One hundred and forty participants studied six-word DRM lists e. At recognition test, participants saw either one or the three critical lures of the lists.
Lists differed in their ease to identify their critical lures extremely low-BAS lists vs. Instead, we think that if the DRM lists included multiples critical lures, a condition used in the present study, it would be more difficult to engage in an identify-to-reject strategy. In this context, it is deese hannover noting that, even though the theoretical explanation of the feeling-of-contrast strategy is strongly related to the DRM associative illusion, to date, there is no empirical evidence that supports the idea that participants engage in this type of monitoring process in the DRM paradigm.
First, we compared false recognition in the one-critical-lure vs. Hereunder, these ideas are deese hannover in more detail.
Feelings of contrast at test reduce false memory in the deese/roediger-mcdermott paradigm
In these cases, certain information is recalled, and the recollection of that memory eliminates the possible occurrence of the questionable event. Furthermore, to make it even less likely that participants engage in an identify-to-reject strategy, we included lists with the minimum possible BAS levels. In those cases, the dubious event i. Furthermore, we were interested deese hannover analyzing two specific comparisons. We aimed to provide, for the first time in the DRM literature, evidence favorable to the existence of a recall-to-reject strategy based on the experience of feelings of contrast.
To prevent the use of mutual exclusivity logic both deese hannover exhaustive recognition and identify-to-reject strategies and analyze whether experiencing feelings of contrast could guide error-editing processes in DRM studies, we used DRM lists with multiple critical lures and extremely deese hannover levels of backward associative strength.
We predicted that false recognition would be lower in the three-critical-lure condition than in the one-critical-lure condition, showing evidence toward the presence of feelings of contrast in the DRM paradigm. To fill this gap, we examined whether, in the DRM paradigm, participants apply a recall-to-reject strategy based on feelings of contrast between items.
In this study, we focused on disqualifying monitoring, a decision process that helps to reject false memories through the recollection of collateral information i. In order to explain false memories, the two main theories are the fuzzy-trace theory or FTT e. Liu et al.
Critically, in the three-critical-lure condition, participants reduced even more false memory when they could also resort to another monitoring strategy i. Another example of the use of the logic of mutual exclusivity to avoid false deese hannover is the finding that highly identifiable critical lures are more likely to be rejected Carneiro et al. In these studies, it is unlikely that participants would have used the logic of mutual deese hannover to reject the critical lures because they would not be able to 1 remember all the studied items or 2 explicitly identify the two or three themes of the list i.
Also, it seems likely that including all the three critical lures of our lists in the recognition test could diminish the probability of engaging in an identify-to-reject strategy i.
Including three actual critical lures per list at the recognition test would increase the likelihood that participants engage in a feeling-of-contrast strategy i. All participants ed an informed consent form and received course credit. The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Salamanca. Deese hannover used this normative study to select distractors from DRM lists that did not include, or were related to, our study items or critical lures. Jou et al. Table 1.
During the last decades, memory researchers have intensely explored the underlying mechanisms of memory distortions, and have shown a particular interest deese hannover false memories Gallo, In this paradigm, participants study lists of words e. It is worth reminding that, in this study, BAS levels were used as a proxy for identifiability levels.
The BAS values for each critical lure hereafter, critical deese hannover BAS were computed as the mean of the deese hannover strengths between each of the six associated words and the particular critical lure, just as in research Robinson and Roediger, Furthermore, ten DRM lists were selected from Alonso et al. Participants engage in recall-to-reject strategies using one or two metacognitive processes: 1 applying the logic of mutual exclusivity or 2 experiencing feelings of contrast between studied items and unstudied lures.
Second, in studies, a positive correlation has been found between BAS and identifiability indexes of the critical lures e. If we assumed that there could be an additive effect on their ability to reduce false memories, this would lead to a greater reduction of false recognition in high-BAS lists than in low-BAS lists when presenting three critical lures per list at test. In other words, the presence of more critical lures per list at the recognition test would increase the chance of feeling the contrast between a lure and the rest of the words i.
First, when there is deese hannover one deese hannover lure per list, participants could identify this word as the theme of the list, they could be aware of the absence of this word in the study list, and, therefore, they might reject it at test i. Therefore, participants are less likely to engage in an identify-to-reject strategy in DRM lists with lower backward associative strength. Specifically, we manipulated two independent variables in this study: the of critical lures per DRM list presented at test one vs.
Thus, whereas error-inflating processes would increase the likelihood to produce false memories, error-editing processes would reduce it.
This monitoring process can be classified into diagnostic and disqualifying monitoring e. supported our hypothesis, showing lower false recognition in the three-critical-lure condition than in the one-critical-lure condition. We expected higher false recognition levels in the extremely low-BAS lists than in the high-BAS lists when tested with all its three critical lures. On the other hand, deese hannover monitoring involves deciding whether the questionable event i.
Participants in the three-critical-lure condition were expected to increase their monitoring, as they would experience stronger feelings of contrast than the participants in the one-critical-lure condition. From our monitoring process perspective, as it was ly mentioned, in the experimental condition in which low-BAS lists are studied and three critical lures per list are included at test, participants could engage in a feeling-of-contrast strategy, but not in monitoring processes following the logic of mutual exclusivity i.
As far as we know, ours is the first attempt in the literature to tackle this particular question deese hannover.
In this case, as referred above, we expected that extremely low levels of associative strength would serve as a proxy for low-identifiability levels. Deese hannover addition, as noted above, participants can also engage in a type of recall-to-reject based on a feeling of contrast between the studied items and the unstudied critical lures Gallo and Lampinen, ; Moore et al.