Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2007 | Original Article

Utilization of covariation knowledge in source monitoring: no evidence for implicit processes

Auteurs: Arndt Bröder, Daniela Noethen, Julia Schütz, Patrick Bay

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2007

Abstract

In three experiments, a “hidden covariation” (Lewicki, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 135–146, 1986) of nonsalient stimulus attributes and the source of stimulus information was established to test whether implicit knowledge about this correlation influences source memory judgments. The source monitoring framework (Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay, in Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28, 1993) postulates heuristic and strategic judgment processes in source attributions. A multinomial model analysis disentangled memory and guessing processes. While there were large strategic guessing biases involving explicit knowledge in all experiments, there was no evidence for the use of implicit covariation knowledge. Only participants who were later able to verbalize the covariation had shown corresponding biases during the source memory test, suggesting that implicit covariation knowledge plays no prominent role in the reconstruction processes in source monitoring.

vorige artikel Sequence effects in a spatial cueing task: Endogenous orienting is sensitive to orienting in the preceding trial

volgende artikel What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

There is a debate whether threshold models or signal detection models are more adequate to analyze source memory and recognition data (e.g., Banks, 2000; Hilford, Glanzer, Kim, and DeCarlo, 2002; Slotnick, Klein, Dodson, and Shimamura, 2000). While this question concerning the adequate decision model is of great theoretical importance, we presently prefer multinomial models for pragmatic reasons of measurement: First, they often approximate signal detection models well (Snodgrass and Corwin, 1988). Second, the models of Bayen et al. (1996) and Meiser and Bröder (2002) have been validated empirically. Third, they are conceptually simple and open for extensions.

In the original model, the d ² parameters are conditionalized on the d ¹, allowing for stochastic dependence of the memory processes. In the models used here, stochastic independence is assumed.

The pattern of results is identical when the D parameters for items presented twice are eqated to D _N.

According to a conventional significance level, the fit is not overwhelmingly good (P < 0.05). We argue, however, that the conventional level is not sensible in this case. We can conclude with high confidence (α = 0.001; 1 - β > 0.999) that there is no model deviation as large as or larger than w = 0.1 which is denoted a “small” effect by Cohen (1988). If the model is fitted to both experimental counterbalancing conditions separately, a misfit results in Condition 1 [G ²(15) = 34.19, P = 0.003], but not in Condition 2 [G ²(15) = 17.00, P = 0.30]. All conclusions remain the same if the statistical tests are only based on Condition 2, ignoring the potentially problematic data set from Condition 1 (Table 1). All statistical tests reported in the text are based on the combined data.

The χ² difference between restricted and unrestricted models is centrally χ² distributed only if the null hypothesis for the unrestricted model holds, so the α probability of the parameter test may be distorted, probably resulting in a progressive test. However, the conclusions drawn are robust: guessing biases can also be tested by comparing the source judgment frequency distributions of false alarms on distractors (see Table 6). χ² tests on these frequencies show converging results: no signs of bias in the control condition, χ²(1, N = 600) = 0.03, P = 0.86, or for unaware participants, χ²(1, N = 970) = 0.00, P > 0.999, but an extreme bias for participants with explicit rule knowledge, χ²(1, N = 242) = 96.57, P < 0.001.

Banks, W. P. (2000). Recognition and source memory as multivariate decision processes. Psychological Science, 11, 267–273PubMedCrossRef

Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. Psychological Review, 97, 548–564CrossRef

Bayen, U. J., Murnane, K., & Erdfelder, E. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 197–215CrossRef

Bayen, U. J., Nakamura, G. V., Dupuis, S. E., & Yang, C. L. (2000). The use of schematic knowledge about sources in source monitoring. Memory and Cognition, 28, 480–500

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum

Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (2003). Halo and devil effects demonstrate valence-based influences on source-monitoring decisions. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 257–278PubMedCrossRef

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1999). GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 1–11

Erdfelder E., Faul F., Buchner A. (2005). Power analysis for categorical methods. In: Everitt B., Howell D. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. London: Wiley, pp 1565–1570

Hager W., Hasselhorn M. (eds.) (1994). Handbuch deutschsprachiger Wortnormen. [Handbook of German word norms]. Göttingen: Hogrefe

Hendrickx, H., DeHouwer, J., Baeyens, F., Eelen, P., & VanAvermaet, E. (1997a). Hidden covariation detection might be very hidden indeed. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 201–220CrossRef

Hendrickx, H., DeHouwer, J., Baeyens, F., Eelen, P., & VanAvermaet, E. (1997b). The hide-and-seek of hidden covariation detection: Reply to Lewicki, Hill, and Czyzewska (1997). Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 229–231CrossRef

Hicks, J. L., & Cockman, D. W. (2003). The effect of general knowledge on source memory and decision processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 489–501CrossRef

Hilford, A., Glanzer, M., Kim, K., & DeCarlo, L. T. (2002). Regularities of source recognition: ROC analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 494–510CrossRef

Hoffman, J., & Sebald, A. (2005). When obvious covariations are not even learned implicity. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 449–480CrossRef

Hu, X., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 59, 21–47CrossRef

Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional use of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541CrossRef

Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85CrossRef

Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28PubMedCrossRef

Lewicki, P. (1986). Processing information about covariations that cannot be articulated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 135–146CrossRef

Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., & Hoffman, H. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 523–530CrossRef

Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Sasaki, I. (1989). Self-perpetuating development of encoding biases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 323–337CrossRef

Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Czyzewska, M. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47, 796–801PubMedCrossRef

Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Czyzewska, M. (1997). Hidden covariation detection: A fundamental and ubiquitous phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 221–228PubMedCrossRef

Mather, M., Johnson, M. K., & De Leonardis, D. M. (1999). Stereotype reliance in source monitoring: age differences and neuropsychological test correlates. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 437–458CrossRef

Mather, M., Shafir, E., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misremembrance of options past: source monitoring and choice. Psychological Science, 11, 132–138PubMedCrossRef

Meiser, T. (2005). A hierarchy of multinomial models for multidimensional source monitoring. Methodology – European Journal of Research Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2–17CrossRef

Meiser, T., & Bröder, A. (2002). Memory for multidimensional source information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 116–137PubMedCrossRef

Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Crossed categorization effects on the formation of illusory correlations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 443–466CrossRef

Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Cognitive processes in stereotype formation: the role of correct contingency learning for biased group judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 599–614PubMedCrossRef

Murnane, K., & Bayen, U. J. (1996). An evaluation of empirical measures of source identification. Memory and Cognition, 24, 417–428

Roßnagel, C. S. (2001). Revealing hidden covariation detection: evidence for implicit abstraction at study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1276–1288PubMedCrossRef

Rothkegel, R. (1999). AppleTree: a multinomial processing tree modeling program for Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 696–700PubMed

Sherman, J. W., & Bessenoff, G. R. (1999). Stereotypes as source-monitoring cues: on the interaction between episodic and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 10, 106–110CrossRef

Shimamura, A. P., & Squire, L. R. (1987). A neuropsychological study of fact memory and source amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 464–473PubMedCrossRef

Slotnick, S. D., Klein, S. A., Dodson, C. S., & Shimamura, A. P. (2000). An analysis of signal detection and threshold models of source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1499–1517PubMedCrossRef

Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50CrossRef

Spaniol, J., & Bayen, U. J. (2002). When is schematic knowledge used in source monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 631–651PubMedCrossRef

Spencer, W. D., & Raz, N. (1995). Differential effects of aging on memory for content and context: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 10, 527–539PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Utilization of covariation knowledge in source monitoring: no evidence for implicit processes
Auteurs: Arndt Bröder
Daniela Noethen
Julia Schütz
Patrick Bay
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2007
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2007
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0047-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2007

Gaze behaviour in hereditary prosopagnosia

What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions

Exploring the mental number line: evidence from a dual-task paradigm

Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

The effects of time pressure on chess skill: an investigation into fast and slow processes underlying expert performance

Rapid onset and long-term inhibition of return in the multiple cuing paradigm