The modality effect in false recognition: Evidence for test-based monitoring

A modality congruency effect in verbal false memory

“…An additional result in favour of a monitoring account of the modality congruency effect comes from Pierce, Gallo, Weiss, and Schacter (2005). In line with previous DRM studies, they observed fewer false alarms to lure items with visual recognition when lists were presented visually rather than auditorily (Exp.…”

The effects of divided attention at study and test on false recognition: A comparison of DRM and categorized lists

“…Although more false R responses were made in the DRM than in the categorized lists (see Pierce et al, 2005, for similar findings), DA led to parallel reductions in false R responses. These findings suggest that levels of false R responses in both DRM and categorized lists are influenced by processes that occur at encoding.…”

“…Specifically, the number of false R responses decreased when attention was divided at study and increased when participants were explicitly instructed to make associations at study. Pierce, Gallo, Weiss, and Schacter (2005) also found an equivalent modality effect using both DRM and categorized lists. Pierce et al argued that participants were better able to use test-based monitoring processes to reduce false memories after visual rather than auditory study, and that this occurred for both list types.…”

Retrieval monitoring is influenced by information value: The interplay between importance and confidence on false memory

“…Sometimes this instruction manipulation has not entirely eliminated the "more-is-less" effect (e.g., Hege & Dodson, 2004;Hunt et al, 2011), suggesting that both accounts may play a role in affecting false memories. Other times, however, the "more-is-less" effect was completely eliminated (e.g., Pierce et al, 2005), suggesting a strong role for retrieval-monitoring processes. In the present study, we showed that this instruction manipulation completely eliminated the effects of value on false memories (and true memories), suggesting that the impoverished-relational account cannot explain the value effects on memory, but rather retrieval-monitoring processes play a critical role.…”

“…We used recognition memory tests rather than free recall (as in Bui et al, 2013) to allow for better comparison with Experiment 1 as well as to generalize the value-false memory effects previously found. Experiment 2 used lists of semantic associates (i.e., DRM lists) with one group of participants receiving standard "old/new" recognition instructions and another group receiving inclusion recognition instructions that should minimize or reduce the engagement of retrieval-monitoring processes (e.g., Brainerd & Reyna, 1998;Hege & Dodson, 2004;Hunt, Smith, & Dunlap, 2011;Pierce, Gallo, Weiss, & Schacter, 2005). Specifically, the group receiving inclusion instructions were instructed to endorse words as "old" if each word was related to the previously studied words, regardless of whether the item was actually studied.…”