Can false memories be corrected by feedback in the DRM paradigm?

Abstract

Normal processes of comprehension frequently yield false memories as an unwanted by-product. The simple paradigm now known as the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm takes advantage of this fact and has been used to reliably produce false memory for laboratory study. Among the findings from past research is the difficulty of preventing false memories in this paradigm. The purpose of the present experiments was to examine the effectiveness of feedback in correcting false memories. Two experiments were conducted, in which participants recalled DRM lists and either received feedback on their performance or did not. A subsequent recall test was administered to assess the effect of feedback. The results showed promising effects of feedback: Feedback enhanced both error correction and the propagation of correct recall. The data replicated other data of studies that have shown substantial error perseveration following feedback. These data also provide new information on the occurrence of errors following feedback. The results are discussed in terms of the activation-monitoring theory of false memory.

Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced

“…This conclusion has already been demonstrated many times in the broader literature on error correction (Bangert-Drowns et al, 1991;Fazio et al, 2010;Shute, 2008); here, we showed that the same rule applies for decreasing the production of false memories (see also Lewandowsky et al, 2012). Previous attempts to correct these strongly held errors often failed to abide by this principle, likely explaining the high rates of error persistence (e.g., McConnell & Hunt, 2007). The conclusion that effective feedback must go beyond identifying an error as Bwrong^is also consistent with other findings that Bforgetting^an old memory is more difficult than replacing it.…”

“…Requiring participants in DRM experiments to mark each error with an BX^while listening to the correct list of words read aloud yields a Bdepressingly high^(p.1005) rate of error persistence (30%-50% of errors are recalled again later; McConnell & Hunt, 2007). The problem is that although this procedure met our first criterion for correcting false memories (by explicitly labeling errors), it did not tell learners what correct answer they should have provided instead.…”

Can corrective feedback improve recognition memory?

“…McConnell and Hunt (2007) tested free recall of DRM lists and gave feedback by rereading the lists as participants corrected their test forms; a second test on the same lists was given 2 days later. The feedback group repeated critical errors from the first test at a considerably lower rate than controls (surprisingly, however, this advantage was partially offset by a tendency for feedback participants to commit more new critical errors than controls during the second test).…”

The Effects of Feedback on Memory Strategies of Younger and Older Adults

“…Previous research has found that immediate feedback on response accuracy significantly reduces participants’ false memories [2, 35]. For instance, Jou and Foreman compared the effects of warnings, “right/wrong” feedback, and “right/wrong” feedback with small prizes across multiple study-test trials on participants’ memory performance.…”

“…Few studies have investigated age-related differences in adjusting or maintaining memory processing strategies under feedback [2, 35]. In particular, we were interested in exploring how feedback may differentially influence gist and item-specific processing strategies among different age groups.…”