False Memory

By Author: Henry Ford
Total Articles: 189
Comment this article

The subject of false memory has drawn significant controversy and extensive academic interest within the global domain. Distinct as an instance in which a person’s report of a past event seriously deviates from the actual event (Hyman, Husband, & Billings, 1995), false memory has been critical to the understanding of human perception and memory. Deese (1959) was one of the pioneering works on false recall with his experiment on the list-learning paradigm. Presenting his subject with list of semantic associates, Deese’s results indicated that the procedure induced the participating subjects to recall words not presented in the list. Interest in the topic of false memory was revived by Roediger and McDermott (1995), when they conducted and presented results of two experiments modeled on Deese’s 1959 research.

Selecting six items in Deese’s list that elicited the highest frequency of false recall, the researchers presented the list to subjects who were to read them and subsequently participate in a free recall test followed by a recognition test under the condition that all items in the list had been ...
... recalled. Studied words, nonstudied critical words or critical lures and nonstudied unrelated words were the major components of the recognition test. Results indicated that critical lures lead to false recall and recognition more frequently comparative to the other non-studied words. The second experiment involved procedural modification of the first one with half of the subjects being subjected to a free recall test following every study list presentation while the other half being subjected to unrelated math problems instead. As a replacement of recognition, Tulving’s (1985 remember versus know judgment task was used with subjects being subjected to both a remember and a know judgment. Results indicated that study and recall condition led to more false recognitions of critical lures comparative to the subjects subjected to the math condition.

The work of Roediger and McDermott (1995) has seen a number of researchers undertake significant investigations into the subject of false memory effect. Loftus & Pickrell (2003) affirm that people can be led to believe in the occurrence of specific events after being suggested to them. They therefore affirm that following two years of research on false memory, it can be stated with accuracy that memory can be significantly altered via suggestions. Furthermore they note that individuals experiencing distorted memories are often confident in their descriptions and may describe the given false events with substantial detail. Guyer and Loftus (2002) also affirm scientific proof of false memory on the basis of case history of Jane Doe.

To offer explanations to the subject, theoretical models and other representations have been advanced to offer explanation on how and why memory fails. Roediger and McDermott (1995) affirmed that the effect may be as a result of either associative or constructive nature of memory. They note that probably, memory errors are likely to occur since remembering is fundamentally constructive in nature. Researchers agree that false recognition effect provides an empirical link between memory and perceptual illusions. Roediger & McDermott (1995) also noted that false memory effect can be explained on the model of perceptual illusions. Modeling our experiments on the Roediger & McDermott, this paper seeks to investigate the false memory effect by determining the effects of normal and special distractors in perpetuating memory distortions. It is hypothesized that variant forms of distractors have varying effects on inducing false memory confirmation of the belief that memory can be altered via suggestion.

Methods

Participants
Thirty-nine subjects participated in this experiment with their data included for the purposes of analysis. The test subjects included 20 males and 19 females with a mean age of 20.60 + 5.20. Ethnicity was statistically balanced with Whites, Hispanic, Asians, Blacks and participants from other backgrounds constituting the group. Selection was made on a convenience sample with participants aiming to complete course.

Materials and Apparatus

Hardware: Computer

Software
CogLab software was used to administer the experiment with SPSS being used in analysis.

Testing Conditions:
The experiment was conducted in a well lit room with a quiet atmosphere to ensure as minimal distraction as possible.

Procedure
Participants were presented with list of critical words. The subjects were to read a list of words and were subsequently subjected to a free recall test in which they were to remember words in the original list. Percentages of reports were subsequently recorded and analyzed. After the successful completion of this stage, subjects were subjected to the recognition test with normal distractors. The distractors were words not in the list and scores or report percentages were recorded. This was followed by the presentation of special distractors; which were words also not in the list. Scores expressed as percentages were obtained and recorded. The subjects were informed to remember the words for a recognition memory test that would follow. It is imperative to note that the test contained items from each studied list with both special and normal distractors listed in a random order.

During the experiment, the subjects were instructed to examine the words in a sequential order and to participate in a free recall exercise in which they were to decide on which words were in the list. Following the experiment, each subject was subjected to tests that assessed their awareness of the presence of the word lists at study and were also asked to offer description of strategies that were used to significantly reduce false memory. It is worthy to note that procedures during the experiment provided a strong test for the possible effects of distractors.

Results
The main purpose of this experiment was to test the effects of variant forms of distractors on the onset of false memory. To achieve this purposes, the obtained data was subjected to a number of statistical tests and analyses.
Each row is for a different student while each column is for one of the conditions in the experiments. The Results were as follows:
False Memory: Percentage of Reports
________________________________________
Percentage of reports
CogLab ID Participant In original list Normal distractor (not in list) Special distractor (not in list)
coglabsp09-14 85.71429 0.0 75.666666
coglabsp09-44 85.71429 0.0 78.666666
coglabsp09-29 88.09524 2.0833333 83.333336
coglabsp09-31 97.61905 6.25 100.0
coglabsp09-12 71.42857 0.0 83.333336
coglabsp09-7 78.57143 2.0833333 83.333336
coglabsp09-19 76.190475 0.0 60.666666
coglabsp09-15 92.85714 8.333333 100.0
coglabsp09-25 83.333336 0.0 66.666664
coglabsp09-6 88.09524 2.0833333 74.666666
coglabsp09-23 59.52381 4.1666665 50.0
coglabsp09-3 92.85714 0.0 66.666664
coglabsp09-18 83.333336 4.1666665 50.0
coglabsp09-8 50.0 8.333333 33.333332

The author is associated with

The author is senior writer at https://www.allacademicanswers.com