Influences of Levels of Processing, Misleading Intensity and Warnings on Memory Suggestibility
- 1 Institute of Education, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China
- 2 Institute of Education, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China
- 3 Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China
Abstract
The influences of levels of processing at the encoding phase, misleading intensity at the misleading phase and warning at the retrieval phase on memory suggestibility were explored through the delayed retrieval errors paradigm, and the contributions of dynamic automatic processing and intentional processing to generation of memory suggestibility were deeply assessed through the Remember/Know/Guess paradigm. The results showed that levels of processing were an important influencing factor for memory suggestibility. The intentional processing at the encoding phase benefited the generation of memory suggestibility more than the automatic processing. The misleading intensity had a significant effect, where the misled-generate items were recalled at a higher level with a longer response time than the misled-read items. In addition, the warning in-creased both the memory suggestibility of misleading pictures and the memory accuracy of non-misleading pictures. This memory suggestibility was jointly caused by the automatic pro-cessing and intentional processing, but mainly intentional processing, and the warning increased the probability of intentional processing during the generation of memory suggestibility.
- Arndt, J. (2006). Distinctive Information and False Recognition: The Contribution of Encoding and Retrieval Factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 113-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.003
- Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). Fuzzy-Trace Theory and Children’s False Memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 81-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2464
- Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., Watson, J. M., & Gallo, D. A. (2005). The Importance of Material-Processing Interactions in Inducing False Memories. Memory & Cognition, 33, 389-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193057
- Dewhurst, S. A., Bould, E., Knott, L. M., & Thorley, C. (2009). The Roles of Encoding and Retrieval Processes in Associative and Categorical Memory Illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 154-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.002
- Gallo, D. A., Roberts, M. J., & Seamon, J. G. (1997). Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists: Can We Avoid Creating False Memories? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 271-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03209405
- Gallo, D. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2001). Associative False Recognition Occurs without Strategic Criterion Shifts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 579-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196194
- Guo, X. Y., Wan, L. L., Guo, X. R., & Wei, Z. C. (2005). A Preliminary Exploration into the Unconsciousness Mechanism in False Memories. Psychological Science, 28, 362-367.
- Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. (2001). False Recognition Occurs More Frequently during Source Identification than during Old-New Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 375-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.375
- Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2000). Dissociating Automatic and Intentional Processes in Children’s Eyewitness Memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 1-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2521
- Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2001). Automatic and Intentional Processes in Children’s Eyewitness Suggestibility. Cognitive Development, 16, 617-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00042-9
- Li, H. Y., Lian, R., & Weng, J. (2008). Effects of Forewarning, Repetition and Feedback on False Memories: An Analysis with the Signal Detection Theory. Psychological Science, 31, 1507-1509.
- Lindsay, S., Hagen, L., Read, J. D., Wade, K., & Garry, M. (2004). True Photographs and False Memories. Psychological Science, 15, 149-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503002.x