Factors that influence the generation of autobiographical memory conjunction errors

Abstract

The constructive nature of memory is generally adaptive, allowing us to efficiently store, process and learn from life events, and simulate future scenarios to prepare ourselves for what may come. However, the cost of a flexibly constructive memory system is the occasional conjunction error, whereby the components of an event are authentic, but the combination of those components is false. Using a novel recombination paradigm, it was demonstrated that details from one autobiographical memory may be incorrectly incorporated into another, forming autobiographical memory conjunction errors that elude typical reality monitoring checks. The factors that contribute to the creation of these conjunction errors were examined across two experiments. Conjunction errors were more likely to occur when the corresponding details were partially rather than fully recombined, likely due to increased plausibility and ease of simulation of partially recombined scenarios. Brief periods of imagination increased conjunction error rates, in line with the imagination inflation effect. Subjective ratings suggest that this inflation is due to similarity of phenomenological experience between conjunction and authentic memories, consistent with a source monitoring perspective. Moreover, objective scoring of memory content indicates that increased perceptual detail may be particularly important for the formation of autobiographical memory conjunction errors.

Autobiographical memory conjunction errors in younger and older adults: Evidence for a role of inhibitory ability.

“…Specifically, a 2×2 mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested the influence of age on conjunction error rates for partially and fully recombined lures. A main effect of recombination degree was found, with more conjunction errors for partially recombined ( M = 4.67%, SD = 5.44) compared with fully recombined lures ( M = 2.36%, SD = 3.63; F (1, 52) = 15.69, p < .001, η 2 p = .23), replicating previous findings (Devitt et al, 2016). No interaction of recombination degree with age was found ( F (1, 52) = 0.70, p = .41, η 2 p = .01).…”

“…Although only a trend, lures for which an event was imagined were more likely to result in conjunction errors than those presented in the associative condition, in line with imagination inflation (Mazzoni & Memon, 2003; Thomas, Bulevich, & Loftus, 2003) and previous results with AM conjunction errors (Devitt et al, 2016). Yet contrary to our hypothesis, both older and younger adults exhibited the same degree of imagination inflation.…”

“…As described in Devitt et al (2016), the AM conjunction error paradigm involved three sessions, which were modified here for use with older adults. In session one, AM details were collected; in session two, conjunction events were imagined and an associative task completed; in session three, a source test and interview were carried out (see Figure 1).…”

Remembering the past and imagining the future: Identifying and enhancing the contribution of episodic memory

“…This flexibility of episodic memory makes it well suited to supporting simulations of different ways that future experiences might unfold, but according to the constructive episodic simulation hypothesis, this very flexibility can also result in memory errors from miscombining elements of past experiences or confusing imagined and actual events (Schacter and Addis, 2007; for recent evidence, see Devitt et al, 2016, and for related ideas, see Dudai and Carruthers, 2005; Dudai and Edelson, 2016; Schacter, et al, 2011; Suddendorf and Busby, 2003). …”

Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts

“…Moreover, the headline-photo pairs were made up of familiar elements that were combined in a novel way (e.g., well-known political figures, such as Tony Blair, paired with a plausible news story). And when novel stimuli are made up of familiar elements, people are more likely to conclude that they have experienced those stimuli before (Devitt, Monk-Fromont, Schacter, & Addis, 2015;Jones & Jacoby, 2001). Together, these factors that increase the perceived truth and familiarity of events would have encouraged a less stringent style of source monitoring, lowering people's bar for accepting the ease of bringing information to mind as evidence the events had happened (Lindsay, 2008;Song & Schwarz, 2008).…”