Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Not enough familiarity for fluency: Definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Five experiments were conducted to test whether encoding manipulations thought to encourage unitization would affect fluency attribution in associative recognition memory. Experiments 1a and 1b, which utilized a speeded recognition memory test, demonstrated that definitional encoding increased reliance on familiarity during the recognition memory test. Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3, however, replicated previous research that had shown that fluency is unlikely to be attributed as evidence of previous occurrence in associative recognition (Westerman, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27:723–732, 2001). The results put limits on the degree to which fluency can influence recognition memory judgments, even in cases of enhanced familiarity, and are consistent with previous work suggesting that participants have preexperimental expectations about fluency that are difficult to change (e.g., Miller, Lloyd, & Westerman, Journal of Memory and Language 58:1080–1094, 2008), as well as with work suggesting that fluency has less of an influence on recognition memory decisions that are conceptual in nature (Parks, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39:1280–1286, 2013).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmad, F. N., & Hockley, W. E. (2014). The role of familiarity in associative recognition of unitized compound word pairs. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2014.923007

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, R., Mecklinger, A., Hoppstädter, M., & Meyer, P. (2010). Recognition memory for one-trial-unitized word pairs: Evidence from event-related potentials. NeuroImage, 50, 772–781. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. J., Shanks, D. R., Speekenbrink, M., & Henson, R. N. A. (2012). Models of recognition, repetition priming, and fluency: Exploring a new framework. Psychological Review, 119, 40–79. doi:10.1037/a0025464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, B., Crupi, C., Mirsattari, S. M., Pigott, S., Parrent, A. G., Pruessner, J. C., & Kohler, S. (2007). Impaired familiarity with preserved recollection after anterior temporal-lobe resection that spares hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 16382–16387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, M., & Moscovitch, M. (2007). Dissociating measures of associative memory: Evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 437–454. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dew, I. T. Z., & Cabeza, R. (2011). The porous boundaries between explicit and implicit memory: Behavioral and neural evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224, 174–190. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05946.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diana, R. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C. (2008). The effects of unitization on familiarity based source memory: Testing a behavioral prediction derived from neuroimaging data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 730–740. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.730

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giovanello, K. S., Keane, M. M., & Verfaellie, M. (2006). The contribution of familiarity to associative memory in amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1859–1865. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.004

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haskins, A. L., Yonelinas, A. P., Quamme, J. R., & Ranganath, C. (2008). Perirhinal cortex supports encoding and familiarity-based recognition of novel associations. Neuron, 59, 554–560. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.07.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hockley, W. E., & Consoli, A. (1999). Familiarity and recollection in item and associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 27, 657–664. doi:10.3758/BF03211559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, D. E., Clark, T. F., Curran, T., & Winkielman, P. (2008). Effects of repetition priming on recognition memory: Testing a perceptual fluency–disfluency model. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 34, 1305–1324. doi:10.1037/a0013370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 126–135. doi:10.1037/0096 3445.118.2.126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurilla, B. P., & Westerman, D. L. (2008). Processing fluency affects subjective claims of recollection. Memory & Cognition, 36, 82–93. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M. E. (2013). Reducing the familiarity of conjunction lures with pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1609–1614. doi:10.1037/a0031144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M. E., & Miller, J. K. (2011). Are two heuristics better than one? The fluency and distinctiveness heuristics in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1264–1274. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M. E., Westerman, D. W., & Miller, J. K. (2003). The fluency heuristic in recognition memory: The effect of repetition. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 608–614. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00535-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252–271. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. K., Lloyd, M. E., & Westerman, D. L. (2008). When does modality matter? Perceptual versus conceptual fluency-based illusions in recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 1080–1094. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, C. M. (2013). Transfer-appropriate processing in recognition memory: Perceptual and conceptual effects on recognition memory depend on task demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1280–1286. doi:10.1037/a0030911

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pilgrim, L. K., Murray, J. G., & Donaldson, D. I. (2012). Characterizing episodic memory retrieval: Electrophysiological evidence for diminished familiarity following unitization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1671–1681. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A. D., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1998). On the relationship between recognition familiarity and perceptual fluency: Evidence for distinct mnemonic processes. Acta Psychologica, 98, 211–230. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00043-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, D. L. (2001). The role of familiarity in item-recognition, associative recognition, and plurality recognition on self-paced and speeded tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 723–732. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.723

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, D. L. (2008). Relative fluency and illusions of recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1196–1200. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, D. L., Lloyd, M. E., & Miller, J. K. (2002). On the attribution of perceptual fluency in recognition memory: The role of expectation. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 607–617. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235–1253. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1235

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Price, J. R. (1997). Implicit/explicit memory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing: Rethinking the mere exposure effect. Memory & Cognition, 29, 234–246. doi:10.3758/BF03194917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis II: Expectation, Uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 14–33. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114, 152–176. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517. doi:10.1006/jmla.2002.2864

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

Marianne E. Lloyd, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University. Ashley Hartman, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University. Chi Ngo, Department of Psychology, Temple University. Nicole Ruser, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University, Deanne L. Westerman, Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, Jeremy K. Miller, Department of Psychology, Willamette University. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Marianne E. Lloyd, Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Ave., South Orange, NJ 07079. E-mail: marianne.lloyd@shu.edu.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ, 07079, USA

    Marianne E. Lloyd, Ashley Hartman & Nicole Ruser

  2. Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Chi T. Ngo

  3. Department of Psychology, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY, USA

    Deanne L. Westerman

  4. Department of Psychology, Willamette University, Salem, OR, USA

    Jeremy K. Miller

Authors
  1. Marianne E. Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashley Hartman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chi T. Ngo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicole Ruser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deanne L. Westerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeremy K. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianne E. Lloyd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lloyd, M.E., Hartman, A., Ngo, C.T. et al. Not enough familiarity for fluency: Definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition. Mem Cogn 43, 39–48 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0449-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0449-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation