Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm

False memories in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm are explained in terms of the interplay between error-inflating and error-editing (e.g., monitoring) mechanisms. In this study, we focused on disqualifying monitoring, a decision process that helps to reject false memories through the rec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sara Cadavid, Maria Soledad Beato, Mar Suarez, Pedro B. Albuquerque
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686390/full
id doaj-17654d2249394f95bc163f908de1e4ee
record_format Article
spelling doaj-17654d2249394f95bc163f908de1e4ee2021-09-13T04:52:26ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782021-09-011210.3389/fpsyg.2021.686390686390Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott ParadigmSara Cadavid0Maria Soledad Beato1Mar Suarez2Pedro B. Albuquerque3School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, ColombiaFaculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainFaculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, SpainSchool of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, PortugalFalse memories in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm are explained in terms of the interplay between error-inflating and error-editing (e.g., monitoring) mechanisms. In this study, we focused on disqualifying monitoring, a decision process that helps to reject false memories through the recollection of collateral information (i.e., recall-to-reject strategies). Participants engage in recall-to-reject strategies using one or two metacognitive processes: (1) applying the logic of mutual exclusivity or (2) experiencing feelings of contrast between studied items and unstudied lures. We aimed to provide, for the first time in the DRM literature, evidence favorable to the existence of a recall-to-reject strategy based on the experience of feelings of contrast. One hundred and forty participants studied six-word DRM lists (e.g., spy, hell, fist, fight, abduction, mortal), simultaneously associated with three critical lures (e.g., WAR, BAD, FEAR). Lists differed in their ease to identify their critical lures (extremely low-BAS lists vs. high-BAS lists). At recognition test, participants saw either one or the three critical lures of the lists. Participants in the three-critical-lure condition were expected to increase their monitoring, as they would experience stronger feelings of contrast than the participants in the one-critical-lure condition. Results supported our hypothesis, showing lower false recognition in the three-critical-lure condition than in the one-critical-lure condition. Critically, in the three-critical-lure condition, participants reduced even more false memory when they could also resort to another monitoring strategy (i.e., identify-to-reject). These findings suggest that, in the DRM context, disqualifying monitoring could be guided by experiencing feelings of contrast between different types of words.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686390/fullfalse memoriesfalse recognitionDRM paradigmdisqualifying monitoringmemory error-editing processesmultiple critical lures per list
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sara Cadavid
Maria Soledad Beato
Mar Suarez
Pedro B. Albuquerque
spellingShingle Sara Cadavid
Maria Soledad Beato
Mar Suarez
Pedro B. Albuquerque
Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm
Frontiers in Psychology
false memories
false recognition
DRM paradigm
disqualifying monitoring
memory error-editing processes
multiple critical lures per list
author_facet Sara Cadavid
Maria Soledad Beato
Mar Suarez
Pedro B. Albuquerque
author_sort Sara Cadavid
title Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm
title_short Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm
title_full Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm
title_fullStr Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm
title_full_unstemmed Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm
title_sort feelings of contrast at test reduce false memory in the deese/roediger-mcdermott paradigm
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Psychology
issn 1664-1078
publishDate 2021-09-01
description False memories in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm are explained in terms of the interplay between error-inflating and error-editing (e.g., monitoring) mechanisms. In this study, we focused on disqualifying monitoring, a decision process that helps to reject false memories through the recollection of collateral information (i.e., recall-to-reject strategies). Participants engage in recall-to-reject strategies using one or two metacognitive processes: (1) applying the logic of mutual exclusivity or (2) experiencing feelings of contrast between studied items and unstudied lures. We aimed to provide, for the first time in the DRM literature, evidence favorable to the existence of a recall-to-reject strategy based on the experience of feelings of contrast. One hundred and forty participants studied six-word DRM lists (e.g., spy, hell, fist, fight, abduction, mortal), simultaneously associated with three critical lures (e.g., WAR, BAD, FEAR). Lists differed in their ease to identify their critical lures (extremely low-BAS lists vs. high-BAS lists). At recognition test, participants saw either one or the three critical lures of the lists. Participants in the three-critical-lure condition were expected to increase their monitoring, as they would experience stronger feelings of contrast than the participants in the one-critical-lure condition. Results supported our hypothesis, showing lower false recognition in the three-critical-lure condition than in the one-critical-lure condition. Critically, in the three-critical-lure condition, participants reduced even more false memory when they could also resort to another monitoring strategy (i.e., identify-to-reject). These findings suggest that, in the DRM context, disqualifying monitoring could be guided by experiencing feelings of contrast between different types of words.
topic false memories
false recognition
DRM paradigm
disqualifying monitoring
memory error-editing processes
multiple critical lures per list
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.686390/full
work_keys_str_mv AT saracadavid feelingsofcontrastattestreducefalsememoryinthedeeseroedigermcdermottparadigm
AT mariasoledadbeato feelingsofcontrastattestreducefalsememoryinthedeeseroedigermcdermottparadigm
AT marsuarez feelingsofcontrastattestreducefalsememoryinthedeeseroedigermcdermottparadigm
AT pedrobalbuquerque feelingsofcontrastattestreducefalsememoryinthedeeseroedigermcdermottparadigm
_version_ 1717381399262003200