lecture 4- reconstruction and false memory Flashcards
labels activate schemas- advantages and disadvantages
Advantages:
We do not need to store exact copies of the information we process.
→ Schemas facilitate encoding, simplify storage, and guide retrieval.
In other words, schemas guide/shape online processing and memory representations.
Disadvantages:
Schemas do not preserve episodic details.
Thus when recalling information – particularly at a delay – we might generate or construct a reasonable, but
potentially distorted, memory.
degree of construction
We remember the gist; we forget the details
* remember the verbal label, forget the perceptual form
* remember the meaning, forget verbatim information
Semantic structures → semantic intrusions
(memory distortions, false memories)
➢How large are these distortions?
➢Can you remember something that didn’t happen at all?
false memories are ‘logical’ errors
We “fill in the gaps” with information from LTM
Fuzzy trace theory (Brainerd & Reyna, 1990):
Learners store a gist trace and a verbatim trace.
Verbatim traces are weaker than gist traces.
Learners generate false memories if they rely on gist traces.
Activation/monitoring framework:
false memories are generated by:
* activating related information in LTM
* and then failing to reject this information as not having been studied
- activation
Activated information activates related information, either consciously or unconsciously (Roediger et al., 2001)
spreading activation in various semantic networks:
bed
wake
snooze
blanket
mattress
tired
awake
doze
snore
nap
rest
peace
yawn
drowsy
sleep
alarm clock
ill
contributing factors
More associations → stronger activation → more false memories
Strength of associations (Deese, 1969; Gallo & Roediger, 2002; Roediger et al., 2001; Seamon et al., 2000; Watson et al., 2003)
Number of semantic associates (Robinson & Roediger, 1997)
Focusing on semantic relationships (McCabe et al., 2004; Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000; Thapar & McDermott, 2001)
monitoring- source monitoring
ability to recall or judge the origin or source of a memory (Johnson et al, 1993).
* Did you see event X on TV or did you read about it online?
* Did you hear about event X from one friend or from another friend?
If we don’t remember the original source, we may misattribute a memory to the wrong source
→ source misattribution (Lindsay & Johnson, 1989)
reality monitoring
ability to discriminate between internally-generated and externally-generated memories
(Johnson & Raye, 1981).
Did you hear the word “sleep” during the study phase of the experiment
or did you activate the word “sleep” yourself?
monitoring failures
If asked explicitly, participants are unable to correctly identify the source of words in DRM lists
(Payne et al., 1996).
* Study: watch a videotape showing two speakers
(Jason, Carol) reading out DRM lists
* Test: first complete a free recall test 3 times,
then (after Test 3) indicate the source of each
word: Jason, Carol, I don’t know (“neither”)
contributing factors
Poor monitoring → difficulty rejecting intrusions → more false memories
Improving monitoring → lower rates of false memories
Distinctiveness (Dodson & Schacter, 2002; Israel & Schacter, 1997; Schacter et al., 1999)
Warnings (Gallo et al., 2001; Neuschatz et al., 2001; Watson et al., 2005)
Processing time at test (Dodson & Hege, 2005)
2. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Studying pictures results in lower false
memory rates than studying words
(picture superiority effect)
loftus and pickrell (1995) paradim
- Collect childhood experiences from the parents of young adults.
- Interview the adults repeatedly about memory for these events plus one that had never happened.
- At first, people do not “remember” the new event. But in subsequent interviews, some do report it as a real memory
reconstruction of stories
Recall content:
evidence of forgetting:
retellings got shorter over time
multiple omissions and inaccuracies
no supernatural elements
Recall errors:
evidence of distortion and reconstruction:
retellings are more coherent, more “rational”
substitutions (“canoes” recalled as “boats”)
but schema-consistent information remains intact
Bergman and Roediger (1999) replication:
Recalls scored for major and minor distortions (e.g., substitutions, inferences, intrusions). Results show loss of accurate information and proportionately more distortions over time.
Important: the process of recalling information does not leave the memory trace for that information intact
summary
- LTM is not a filing cabinet
- new memory= ‘merging’ new and old information (evidence from DRM, misinformation studies)
- retrieving information from LTM= some episodic recall, some reconstruction, some integration of post event information…. but simply not playback
- We can’t easily distinguish “true” memories from “false” memories by examining overt
behavior: people behave as if they have in fact experienced the events they are recalling
→ implications for eyewitness testimony: Can we use memories/confidence as evidence?
