|Reference : False memory and surprise: round #3|
|Scientific congresses and symposiums : Poster|
|Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Theoretical & cognitive psychology|
|False memory and surprise: round #3|
|Willems, Sylvie [Université de Liège - ULg > Services généraux (Fac. de psycho. et des sc. de l'éducat.) > Clinique psychologique et logopédique universitaire (CPLU) >]|
|Dehon, Hedwige [Université de Liège - ULg > Département de Psychologie : cognition et comportement > Psychologie cognitive >]|
|University of Tours|
|[en] false memory ; fluency ; expectancy|
|[en] Three experiments examined the links between surprise feeling and a false memory phenomenon, the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) effect. In DRM paradigm, subjects studied lists of related words (NIGHT, DREAM, etc.) that were associated with non-presented critical word (e.g., SLEEP) for which high false recognition rate is after noted. Roediger and coll. (in press) suggested that this effect occur because critical words are highly activated by their semantic association with words that are in the list. Whittlesea et al. (2005) proposed an alternative explanation, based on the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. According to that account, false recognition results when a feeling of surprise comes from a discrepancy between subject’s expectation about processing fluency and real processing fluency. When Whittlesea and coll. have provided a range of evidences for this account, Roediger and coll. found that subjects were not surprised when they encountered non-presented critical word during recognition test. We explained these discrepant findings by methodology differences between these two studies. Whittlesea et al. noted that various procedures that eliminate surprise eliminate the false memories. However, they used a modified DRM procedure (e.g., RSVP presentations and recognition judgment for each critical word directly after the study of each list of related words). In contrast, Roediger and coll. used a classical DRM procedure but did not eliminate surprise feeling. Rather, they investigated whether subjects experienced the critical word as surprising by asking them to make judgments of surprise on a recognition test. In this study, we used various procedures that eliminate surprise like Whittlesea but we used classical DRM paradigm like Roediger. Experiment 1 replicates the DRM effect. Experiment 2 & 3 shows that the DRM effect is decreased but not abolished when participants are prevented from being surprised by critical word. It is proposed that experience of surprise participate to DRM effect, but not alone.|
There is no file associated with this reference.
All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.