Phantom recall
Section snippets
Phantom recollection in recognition
In recognition designs, Tulving’s (1985) remember/know procedure has been extensively used to measure the retrieval phenomenologies that accompany hits and false alarms. Although other introspective techniques have also been used, such as ratings of specific experiential components of retrieval phenomenology (e.g., Heaps & Nash, 2001; Mather, Henkel, & Johnson, 1997), remember/know has been the overwhelming methodology of choice. Participants are told to make a “remember” judgment for a
Measuring phantom recollection in recall
Our approach uses behavioral data—specifically free-recall responses themselves—to evaluate retrieval phenomenologies, rather than introspective reports. This approach responds to recent measurement criticisms of remember/know judgments (Brainerd et al., 2001; Hintzman, 2001; but see Jacoby, Debner, & Hay, 2001, and Yonelinas, Kroll, Dobbins, Lazzara, & Knight, 1998, for contradictory data). Approaches of this sort are also needed to study retrieval phenomenologies in populations that are
Experiment 1
Participants studied a series of DRM lists in either a blocked or random presentation format, followed by repeated recall. The words comprising each DRM list were grouped together during blocked presentation, whereas there was no systematic grouping during random presentation. This manipulation was included because blocked presentation, which is known to produce higher levels of false recall than random presentation (McDermott, 1996), should create stronger gist memories of lists’ core themes
Experiment 2
The second experiment resembled the first in that participants studied a series of DRM lists, followed by three buffered free-recall tests. However, blocked vs random presentation was replaced by two manipulations that provide further information about the memorial basis of phantom recollection. The first was repetition. Half the lists were presented once, and half were presented thrice. McDermott (1996) found that repetition of DRM lists decreased false recall while increasing true recall, and
Experiment 3
The purpose of Experiment 3 was to seek converging evidence using a different methodology, the conjoint-recall paradigm that was described earlier. The design of the experiment involved an instructional manipulation and a list manipulation. Concerning the instructional manipulation, participants recalled DRM lists under one of three types of instructions: verbatim (V: recall only presented words); meaning (M: recall only unpresented words that share meaning with presented words); verbatim +
General discussion
The present experiments generated a reasonably consistent picture of phantom recollective experience in DRM recall, using different paradigms and different experimental manipulations. In most conditions of these experiments, high levels of phantom recollection accompanied false recall. Levels of phantom recollection did not differ reliably from levels of true recollection on the first recall test in Experiment 1 (for both blocked and random presentation), on the first delayed test in Experiment
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (SBR-9730143), by National Institute of Health Grants (NIH31620 and P50AT00008), and by a Schering Plough/Integrated Therapeutics Group grant. We thank Vanessa Calabrese, H. L. Roediger, and D. Riefer for many helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We thank Humberto Valesquez for assistance with data scoring and analysis.
References (49)
- et al.
False-recognition reversal: When similarity is distinctive
Journal of Memory and Language
(1995) - et al.
Dual-retrieval processes in free and associative recall
Journal of Memory and Language
(2002) Dissociating automatic and consciously controlled effects of study/test compatibility
Journal of Memory and Language
(1996)- et al.
A fuzzy trace analysis of categorical inferences and instantial associations as a function of retention interval
Cognitive Development
(1996) The persistence of false memories in list recall
Journal of Memory and Language
(1996)- et al.
The rise and fall of false recall: The impact of presentation duration
Journal of Memory and Language
(2001) - et al.
Memory illusions: Recalling, recognizing, and recollecting events that never occurred
Journal of Memory and Language
(1996) - et al.
Theories of false memory in children and adults
Learning and Individual Differences
(1997) - et al.
Repetition can have similar or different effects on accurate and false recognition
Journal of Memory and Language
(2002) On the dual effects of repetition on false recognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
(2001)
Evidence for a generate-recognize model of episodic influences on word-stem completion
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
When things that never happened are easier to remember than things that did
Psychological Science
Fuzzy-trace theory: Dual-processes in reasoning, memory, and cognitive neuroscience
Advances in Child Development and Behavior
Is retrievability grouping good for recall?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Conjoint recognition
Psychological Review
On the development of conscious and unconscious memory
Developmental Psychology
Conjoint recognition and phantom recollection
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Violations of the independence assumption in process dissociation
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall
Journal of Experimental Psychology
The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing
Memory & Cognition
Discovering functionally independent mental process: The principle of reversed association
Psychological Review
Modality effects in false recall and false recognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Cited by (86)
Episodic thought in development: On the relation between memory and future thinking
2023, Developmental ReviewDistinguishing the role of conscious and unconscious knowledge in evaluative conditioning
2020, CognitionCitation Excerpt :As suggested by Halbeisen et al. (2014), false memory of the US could be responsible for these effects. Participants could, in some cases, experience phantom recollection of a wrong US when they made an incorrect response or when they evaluate CS (Brainerd et al., 2003). Participants could also have based their responses at the valence identification test on their attitudes toward CS (Hütter et al., 2012, but see Mierop et al., 2017).
Increased phantom recollection after sleep
2018, Consciousness and CognitionCitation Excerpt :MPT models have been applied to many areas of cognitive psychology (see Erdfelder et al., 2009, for a review). In relation to FTT, estimates of verbatim- versus gist-based memory have been found to vary statistically and independently under different experimental conditions (Brainerd et al., 2001, 2003; Brainerd, Reyna, & Mojardin, 1999; Stahl & Klauer, 2008, 2009). Brainerd et al. (1999) first proposed the conjoint recognition (CR) paradigm and multinomial model to empirically separate verbatim and gist memory.
Relative contributions of semantic and phonological associates to over-additive false recall in hybrid DRM lists
2017, Journal of Memory and LanguageCitation Excerpt :Fuzzy trace theory posits that events are coded as verbatim traces (with specific details of the events) and/or gist traces (the semantic content). False memories arise from strong gist traces that lead to “phantom recollection” (Brainerd, Payne, Wright, & Reyna, 2003). Because false memories are entirely based on gist traces (semantic content) in this theory, there is no reason to expect phonological or orthographic associates to increase false recall or false recognition.
Short-Term Phantom Recollection in 8–10-Year-Olds and Young Adults
2023, Journal of Intelligence