Latent variable modeling of cognitive processes in true and false recognition of words: A developmental perspective.

Abstract

The present study aimed at testing theoretical predictions of the fuzzy-trace theory about true and false recognition. The effects of semantic relatedness and study opportunity on true and false recognition of words from Deese, Roediger, McDermott lists (J. Deese, 1959; D. R. Read, 1996; H. L. Roediger & K. B. McDermott, 1995) were evaluated in 7- to 12-year-old children (N = 151). Instead of a traditional analysis of variance, the authors used a relatively novel statistical analysis technique, latent class factor analysis, to test the hypotheses pertaining to the effect of semantic relatedness and study opportunity on children's true and false recognition given their low or high verbatim-trace and gist-trace level. The results showed that variation in true recognition of target words from semantically related and unrelated word lists that were either studied once or repeated could be explained well by variation in verbatim-trace and gist-trace level. Variation in false recognition of semantically related distractors also could be explained by variation in gist-trace level, but the recollection-rejection hypothesis was not confirmed. The variable age was positively but weakly related to gist-trace level, but no significant relationship was found between age and verbatim-trace level.

The development of automatic and controlled inhibitory retrieval processes in true and false recall

“…It is also important to note that age-related increases in false memories (e.g., Brainerd et al, 2008) were not quite as evident in Experiments 2 and 3, similar to other recent reports of developmentally invariant false memory effects (see Bouwmeester & Verkoeijen, 2010;Wimmer & Howe, 2010). We give two possible explanations for this.…”

“…Although we felt younger age groups would struggle with the presentation of more lists, this may not have been sufficient to show the typical agerelated increases. Second, individual differences within young age groups (5-and 7-yearolds) are likely to be more prominent than for older age groups (11-year-olds and adults; see also, Bouwmeester & Verkoeijen, 2010).…”

Theoretical and forensic implications of developmental studies of the DRM illusion

“…Regarding item-level suppression, three experiments measured age variability in FTT's recollection-rejection operation. Brainerd et al (2004) and Bouwmeester and Verkoeijen (2010) reported that it did not increase between early childhood and early adolescence, while Brainerd et al (2004) and Odegard et al (2008) reported substantial increases between early adolescence and young adulthood. Regarding disqualifying monitoring, the pre-study warning manipulation of Gallo, Roberts, and Seamon (1997) and the directed forgetting manipulation of Kimball and Bjork (2002) have been investigated (Carneiro & Fernandez, 2009;Howe, 2005), but there seems to be only one developmental study of the most-researched suppression operation of this type in adults, Schacter and associates' (e.g., Schacter et al, 1999) distinctiveness heuristic, and the procedures of that study (Ghetti et al, 2002) differed in certain respects from those of Schacter et al .…”

“…child-and adult-normed normed DRM lists age increases in false memory for child and adult normed lists Bouwmeester and Verkoeijen (2010) 7-12 1 recog. 1 vs. 2 study trials per DRM list; effects of gist memory gist memory and recollection rejection separated with latent variables models age increases in false memory greater with 2 studies than 1; age increases tied to variability in gist memory but not variability in recollection rejection Brainerd, Reyna, and Forrest (2002) 5-adult 3 recall/recog.…”

Dividing attention lowers children's but increases adults' false memories.

“…This finding has also been reported by Wimmer and Howe (2010) who also demonstrated that false recognition was very low for adults under full attention. Although speculative, one possible explanation for this might be differences in populations and individual variations in false memory vulnerability (Bouwmeester & Verkoeijen, 2010).…”