Metamnemonic control over the discriminability of memory evidence: A signal detection analysis of warning effects in the associative list paradigm

Starns, Jeffrey J.; Lane, Sean M.; Alonzo, Jill D.; Roussel, Cristine C.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.013

Cited by 26 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reinstated context in BCDMEM is similar to the notion of a source schema or template in the source-monitoring framework (SMF; Johnson et al, 1993); that is, a general representation of the types of memory evidence that would be expected for a memory that originated in a particular source. Proponents of the SMF have emphasized that source schemas can determine the nature of what is activated and/or evaluated in memory traces (Lindsay & Johnson, 1989;Marsh & Hicks, 1998;Starns, Lane, Alonzo, & Roussel, 2007), and cues could improve performance by guiding the formation of more appropriate source schemas. Murnane, Phelps, and Malmberg (1999) developed the item-context-ensemble (ICE) model to explain the presence or absence of context reinstatement effects on recognition discriminability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal reinstatement hides cuing effects in source memory tasks

Starns

Hicks

2013

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinstating source details at test often has no impact on source memory. We tested the proposition that participants internally reinstate source cues when such cues are not provided by the experimenter, thus making the external cues redundant. Participants studied words paired with either a male or a female face and were later asked to specify the gender of the face studied with each word. To disrupt the ability to internally reinstate sources, some participants saw eight male faces and eight female faces throughout the study list (multiple-face condition), making it difficult to determine which face should be internally reinstated for uncued test trials. Other participants saw only a single face for each gender (single-face condition), which should facilitate internal reinstatement. Across three experiments, participants in the multiple-face condition showed improved source discrimination when the studied faces were reinstated at test, as compared to uncued trials. In contrast, participants in the single-face condition showed no effect of the face cues. Moreover, the cuing effect for the multiple-face condition disappeared when the test structure facilitated internal reinstatement. Overall, the experiments support the contention that internal reinstatement is a natural part of source retrieval that can mask the effects of external cues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal reinstatement hides cuing effects in source memory tasks

Starns

Hicks

2013

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experiment 2 took place mid-semester, and, as noted above, overlapped with lectures on the DRM paradigm in some psychology courses, giving many participants recent preexperimental insight regarding the nature of the test lists. In experimental settings, warnings about the critical lure decrease DRM false alarm rates (see Starns, Lane, Alonzo, & Roussel, 2007, for a review). Variability in this foreknowledge across Experiment 2 participants may have driven differences in false recall of critical lures, undermining the detection of other mediators (e.g., inherent response bias).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response bias in recognition memory as a cognitive trait

Kantner

Lindsay

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although substantial false alarm rates generally persist following warnings, they are usually significantly lower than those of unwarned controls (e.g., Gallo, Roberts, & Seamon, 1997;McDermott & Roediger, 1998). Although some evidence indicates that the warning must be delivered before encoding of the study lists for a reduction in false alarms to occur (e.g., Anastasi, Rhodes, & Burns, 2000;Neuschatz, Payne, Lampinen, & Toglia, 2001), other evidence suggests that a warning delivered between study and test can have a beneficial effect as well (e.g., Lane, Roussel, Starns, Villa, & Alonzo, 2008;McCabe & Smith, 2002;Starns et al, 2007). If, as the latter finding suggests, participants benefit from insight into the test design without having such knowledge at study, the use of this information, and the consequent decrease in critical false alarms, must be achievable via processes operating at test.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%