PSY 368 Human
Memory
Semantic Memory cont.
Reconstructive Memory
Announcements
• Data from Experiment 3 due April 9 (Mon)
• Experiment 3 Report due April 16
• If you missed the details of the Experiment, I included
them again at the end of this lecture
• Optional reading for Monday is posted on Blackboard
site (Media Library: Optional Readings):
• Einstein, et al (2005) Prospective Memory article
• Dr. Dawn McBride will be our speaker
Exam 2
• … was hard!
• The mean % was 67.7%.
• The range of scores was from 41% to
92%
• So when interpreting your score,
think “good job” if in the 80s and
90s and ‘okay’ if in the mid 60s to
70s.
• It was harder than I expected, so I am
thinking about offering an additional,
one-time-only extra credit option. I’ll
get the details hammered out this
weekend (probably another article and
focus questions kind of thing)
Summary of Semantic Memory
• Semantic memory = knowledge
• Some evidence for a separate system
• Early models suggested hierarchical network - cognitive
economy
• Results suggest no strict hierarchy or cognitive economy
• But current network models suggest loosened hierarchy
(spreading activation)
• Other ideas: compound cues, prototypes, exemplars,
schemas
• What kind of impact is there of this organization on
retrieval of memories?
Compound Cue Models
• Alternatives to Spreading activation models
• Examine mechanisms of priming and extent to explain of priming effects
• Make predictions about performance in memory retrieval tasks
• Generally they are mathematical models that predict sets of results based on
strength of cue associations
• There are a lot of models to choose from (see “optional chapter” for details)
• In SAM (Search of Associative Memory), a matrix of association among cues and
memory traces, which are called images
• Cues are assembled in a short-term store, or probe set, which is the match against all item in
memory
• In TODAM (Theory Of Distributed Associative Memory), to-be-remembered items
are represented as vectors of features
• Sum of vectors, convolution
• The resulting scalar can be mapped into familiarity and, in turn, into response time and
accuracy
Semantics as Exemplars
• Instance theory: each concept is represented as
examples of previous experience (e.g., Medin & Schaffer, 1978;
Hintzman, 1986)
• Make comparisons to stored instances
• Typically have a probabilistic component
• Which instance gets retrieved for comparison
dog
Semantics as Prototypes
• Prototype theory: store feature information with most
“prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975)
Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 if
these are good examples
of category: Furniture
TV
bed
chair
table
refrigerator
couc
h
desk
1) chair
1) sofa
2) couch
3) table
:
:
12) desk
13) bed
:
:
42) TV
54) refrigerator
Semantics as Prototypes
• Prototype theory: store feature information with most
“prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975)
• Prototypes:
• Some members of a category are better instances of the category
than others
• Fruit: apple vs. pomegranate
• What makes a prototype?
• Possibly an abstraction of exemplars
• More central semantic features
• What type of dog is a prototypical dog?
• What are the features of it?
• We are faster at retrieving prototypes of a category than other
members of the category
Semantics as Prototypes
• The main criticisms of the theory
• The model fails to provide a rich enough representation of conceptual
knowledge
• Vague: How can we think logically if our concepts are so vague?
• Flexibility: How do our concepts manage to be flexible and adaptive, if they
are fixed to the similarity structure of the world?
• features have different importance in different contexts
• what determines the feature weights
• Individual differences: If each of us represents the prototype differently,
how can we identify when we have the same concept, as opposed to two
different concepts with the same label?
• Does membership = similarity?: Why do we have concepts which
incorporate objects which are clearly dissimilar, and exclude others which
are apparently similar?
Demo
• Before we start talking about constructive (integrative) and reconstructive
memory, let’s do a demonstration.
• I will present you with a long list of words, which I’ll later test your
memory for.
queen
crown
castle
England
throne
ruler
prince
royalty
power
hill
valley
climb
summit
top
molehill
peak
plain
glacier
butter
food
eat
sandwich
rye
jam
milk
flour
jelly
thread
pin
eye
sewing
sharp
point
prick
thimble
haystack
steal
robber
crook
burglar
money
cop
bad
rob
jail
shoe
hand
toe
kick
sandals
soccer
yard
walk
ankle
Name as many state capitals as you can
(1) Vermont
(8) Missouri
(2) New York
(9) Colorado
(3) North Carolina
(10) Florida
(4) Alaska
(11) Washington
(5) California
(12) Virginia
(6) Texas
(13) New Mexico
(7) Maine
(14) Oregon
Write Y or N for each word below to indicate
if you saw it in the list (Y) or not (N)
(1) haystack
(2) sandals
(3) fright
(4) weather
(5) sharp
(6) hot
(7) creek
(8) king
(9) thread
(10) shoe
(11) winter
(12) tide
(13) airplane
(14) flow
(15) pretty
(16) ankle
(17) awake
(18) doctor
(19) frame
(20) jelly
(21) top
(22) jazz
(23) sugar
(24) needle
(25) rye
(26) melody
(27) spider
(28) music
(29) girl
(30) bread
(31) sweet
(32) stream
(33) soft
(34) river
(35) jail
(36) glacier
(37) thief
(38) hill
(39) power
(40) butter
(41) foot
(42) father
(43) jagged
(44) door
(45) throne
(46) money
(47) mountain
(48) steal
Studied list words - Accurate memories
• Count up your correct Yes responses
(1) haystack
(2) sandals
(3) fright
(4) weather
(5) sharp
(6) hot
(7) creek
(8) king
(9) thread
(10) shoe
(11) winter
(12) tide
(13) airplane
(14) flow
(15) pretty
(16) ankle
(17) awake
(18) doctor
(19) frame
(20) jelly
(21) top
(22) jazz
(23) sugar
(24) needle
(25) rye
(26) melody
(27) spider
(28) music
(29) girl
(30) bread
(31) sweet
(32) stream
(33) soft
(34) river
(35) jail
(36) glacier
(37) thief
(38) hill
(39) power
(40) butter
(41) foot
(42) father
(43) jagged
(44) door
(45) throne
(46) money
(47) mountain
(48) steal
Critical theme words - False memories
• Count up your false Yes responses
• Pay particular attention to the ones in brown
(1) haystack (13) airplane
(25) rye
(37) thief
(2) sandals (14) flow
(26) melody (38) hill
(3) fright
(15) pretty
(27) spider (39) power
(4) weather (16) ankle
(28) music (40) butter
(5) sharp
(17) awake
(29) girl
(41) foot
(6) hot
(18) doctor
(30) bread (42) father
(7) creek
(19) frame
(31) sweet (43) jagged
(8) king
(20) jelly
(32) stream (44) door
(9) thread
(21) top
(33) soft
(45) throne
(10) shoe
(22) jazz
(34) river
(46) money
(11) winter (23) sugar
(35) jail
(47) mountain
(12) tide
(24) needle
(36) glacier (48) steal
Demo
• The task that we just did is called the DRM task
• (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995)
• It is designed to create false memories
• We’ll return to discussing this procedure later in the
lecture
Remembering larger chunks
• How do people acquire and remember ideas
• Not individual sentences, but integrated semantic ideas
Semantic Integration
• How do people acquire and remember ideas
• Not individual sentences, but integrated semantic ideas
Bransford & Franks (1971)
• Each idea grouping consisted of 4 separate simple
propositions (a simple relationship between 2 concepts)
• The ants in the kitchen at the sweet jelly that was on the table.
•
•
•
•
The ants were in the kitchen
The ants ate the jelly
The jelly was sweet
The jelly was on the table
Semantic Integration
Bransford & Franks (1971)
• Whether subjects responded
OLD or NEW was not related
to whether the sentence was
old or new
• Confidence in memory was
NOT related to accuracy
• Subjects “remembered”
seeing complex sentences that
captured the meaning of the • The simple sentences were
simple sentences
integrated into one sentence that
• The ants in the kitchen ate the
captured the story’s gist
sweet jelly on the table
Semantic Integration
Bransford & Franks (1971)
• A composite memory
• We store separate bits of info together to the extent
those bits are related to each other (semantic
relatedness)
• Using what we already know (schemata & scripts) to
understand new experiences in a conceptuallydriven fashion
• Drawbacks: May lead to distortions when we try to remember and
may not be technically accurate
• Advantages: Content accuracy is enhanced and thus we can
remember complex, meaningful events
Schema Theory
• Scripts and schemas:
• Knowledge is packaged in integrated conceptual
structures.
• Scripts: Typical action sequences (e.g., going to the
restaurant, going to the doctor…)
• Schemas: Organized knowledge structures (e.g., your
knowledge of cognitive psychology).
• Enable us to predict events, make sense of unfamiliar
circumstances, organize our own behavior
• Act as filters to perception & recall
Schema Theory
?
The mind takes in the impoverished sensory input and matches it to a
schema derived from past experience. The schema is used to ‘fill in the
blanks’ in the input and to give it a meaning. Your ability to ‘see’ what’s
there depends on your having an appropriate schema.
Schema Theory
Bower, Black, and Turner (1979)
• Restaurant Script
• 73% of respondents
reported these common
events when going to a
restaurant:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sit down
Look at menu
Order
Eat
Pay bill
Leave
• 48% also included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enter restaurant
Give reservation name
Order drinks
Discuss menu
Talk
Eat appetizer
Order dessert
Eat dessert
Leave a tip
Schema Theory
• People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and
schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts
are typical).
Schema Theory
• People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and
schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts
are typical).
• When people see stories like this:
Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously surveying a
pale figure secured to the long gleaming table before him. One swift stroke
of his small, sharp instrument and a thin red line appeared. Then an eager
young assistant carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside
glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare. Everyone present
stared in horror at the ugly growth too large for removal. He now knew it
was pointless to continue.
Schema Theory
• People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and
schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts
are typical).
• And you ask them to recognize words that might have been part of
the story, they tend to recognize material that is script or schema
typical even if it was not presented.
• Which of the following words appeared in the story?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scalpel
Assistant
Nurse
Doctor
Operation
Hospital
Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously
surveying a pale figure secured to the long gleaming table
before him. One swift stroke of his small, sharp instrument
and a thin red line appeared. Then an eager young assistant
carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside
glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare.
Everyone present stared in horror at the ugly growth too large
for removal. He now knew it was pointless to continue.
Schema Theory
• When people are told the script or schema that is
appropriate before hearing some material they tend to
understand it better than if they are not told it at all or are
told it after the material.
Schema Theory
Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment
and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was
being held, especially since the charge against him had been weak. He
considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong but he
thought he could break it. He knew, however, that his timing would have to
be perfect. Rocky was aware that it was because of his early roughness that
he had been penalized so severely - much too severely from his point of
view. The situation was becoming frustrating; the pressure had been
grinding on him for too long. He was being ridden unmercifully. Rocky was
getting angry now. He felt he was ready to make his move. He knew that his
success or failure would depend on what he did in the next few seconds.
Wrestling
Prison
Other
?
Schema Theory
Every Saturday night, four good friends get together. When Jerry, Mike, and Pat arrived,
Karen had just finished writing some notes. She quickly arranged the cards and stood up
to greet her friends at the door. They followed her into the living room and sat down
facing each other. They began to play. Karen's recorder filled the room with soft and
pleasant music. Her hand flashed in front of everyone's eyes and they all noticed her
diamonds. They continued for many hours until everyone was exhausted and quite silly.
Jerry made his friends laugh as he theatrically took a bow, entertaining them all with the
wildness of his playing. Finally, Karen's friends went home.
Playing cards
Playing music
Other
?
Schema Theory
• Potential “down-side” of schemata
• Memory is not a direct record of what was witnessed
• What is encoded and how it is retrieved depends on:
• Information already stored in memory
• How this info is understood, structured and organized
• Reconstructive retrieval
• Refers to schema-guided construction of episodic memories that
alter and distort encoded memory representations.
• Reconstruction levels by losing details, assimilates by
normalizing to fit expectations, and sharpens by embellishing
details.
Schema Theory
• Bartlett (1932)
• Read unfamiliar story “War of the Ghosts”
• Then the subjects “re-told” the story
• Looked at progressive changes in what subjects
remembered about the story
• Remembered differently depending on expectation
Schema Theory
• Bartlett (1932)
Schema Theory
• Bartlett (1932)
Proportions of text propositions recalled after varying retention
intervals (adapted from Bergman & Roediger, 1999)
• When recalled by UK PPs:
• Some details changed
• More consistent with
‘Western’ schema
• Omissions:
• Poor recall for many of the details
(specific names, or events)
• Minor events were omitted (recall for
main plot and sequence of events was
not too bad)
• Shorter than the original
• Normalizations:
• Tendency to add and alter the
stories to make them more
conventional or reasonable (topdown processing)
Schema Theory
• Bartlett (1932)
• Conclusions:
• Human memory for this type of material is
NOT reproductive
• A highly accurate, verbatim recording of an event
• Rather, it is reconstructive
• Altered during BOTH storage and retrieval
• Combining elements from the original material with
existing knowledge
Reconstructive Effects
• Knowledge about a theme of a passage improves peoples
memory for the passage
• Providing a theme can also distort recall
Sulin & Dooling (1974)
• Subjects read identical stories about:
• Carol Harris (fictitious) or Helen Keller
• “Problem child from birth, wild, stubborn, violent…”
• Asked to identify if sentences were the same, nearly the
same, or different from the story
Reconstructive Effects
• Knowledge about a theme of a passage improves peoples
memory for the passage
• Providing a theme can also distort recall
Sulin & Dooling (1974)
• Subjects who read the Keller paragraph rated sentences as the
same more frequently when they matched their existing
knowledge about Keller
• Even though the original paragraph did not contain such info
• 1 week later: “Was she deaf, dumb, and blind?”
• 5% of Harris group said yes
• 50% of Keller said yes
• The Keller groups’ “memory” of these stories was influenced by
their knowledge of Keller
False Memories
• Memory is reconstructive
• Errors of omission
• Transience, absent-mindedness, blocking
• Errors of commission
• Misattribution, suggestibility, bias
• Why do we study them?
• Like perceptual illusions, can give better understanding of
“normal” processes
• Eyewitness testimony credibility
• Recovered memories issue
Eyewitness Testimony
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Reconstructive memory
• Schema driven errors
• Effect of leading questions
Eyewitness Testimony
• Persuasiveness
• Most persuasive form of evidence
• Eyewitnesses believed ~80% of the time (Loftus, 1983)
Type of Evidence
% guilty votes
Eyewitness testimony
78
Fingerprints
70
Polygraph
53
Handwriting
34
• Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate
and an inaccurate witness
• Accurate witness believed 68% of time
• Inaccurate witness believed 70% of time
Eyewitness Testimony
• Persuasiveness
• Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate
and an inaccurate witness
• Wells et al. (1998)
• Studied 40 people who were convicted but later cleared by DNA
• In 90% (36) of the cases, there was false eyewitness identification
• Rattner (1988)
• Studied 205 wrongfully convicted defendants
• 52% were due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony
• Brandon and Davies (1973)
• Described 70 cases of people wrongfully convicted due to inaccurate
eyewitness testimony
Eyewitness Testimony
• Persuasiveness
• Experimental studies
• Buckhout (1975)
• Simulated crime on a TV newscast
• 2,145 callers
• 14.7% were accurate
• Buckhout (1974)
• Staged assault on professor in front of 141 students
• 7 weeks later, students shown line-up of six photographs
• 40% identified attacker
• 36% identified bystander
• 23% identified person not there
Eyewitness Testimony
• What do witnesses report?
Attribute
% Reporting
% Accurate
Gender
99.6
100
Height
91.2
44
Clothing (upper body)
90.8
58
Clothing (head)
89.6
56
Build
84.4
57
Weapon
76.4
71
Clothing (pants)
73.6
53
Age
62.4
38
Type of speech
46.8
84
Fashsing, Ask, & Granhag (2004)
Eyewitness Testimony
• Schema Driven Errors
• Witnesses to crimes filter information during acquisition &
recall
• Their schematic understanding may influence how info is both
stored & retrieved
• Distortions may occur without the witness realizing, based on
things like:
• Past experiences
• Assumptions about what usually happens
• Stereotypes & beliefs about crime & criminals
Eyewitness Testimony
• Interference paradigm
• Information presented after an event can lead to distortions
• Post-event information can be incorporated into the original
memory
• Misinformation effect
• are even found when participants are warned that misleading
information might be presented
• Repeated exposure to misinformation strengthens memory about
the misinformation
• Repeated questioning about an event can enhance recall of certain
details and induce forgetting of others (also increases confidence
in memory of the event)
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of leading questions on recall
• Leading questions introduce new information
• Leading info may activate wrong schemas in witness‘ mind
• Consequently, witness may recall events incorrectly
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of leading questions on recall
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
• Showed film of car accident
• Estimated speed
• How fast were the cars going when they ____ into each other?
(smashed, hit, collided, etc)
• ‘Smashed’ led to higher speed estimates Smashed 40.8 mph
Collided
Bumped
Hit
Contacted
39.3 mph
38.1 mph
34.0 mph
31.8 mph
• Did you see a/the broken headlight?
• ‘The’ produced more affirmative (incorrect) responses
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of leading questions on recall
• Most affected by leading Qs when:
•
•
•
•
Witness believes questioner knows more than them
Witness does not realize they may be misled
Leading information is peripheral, not central
Leading information is not blatantly incorrect
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of misleading information on recall
• Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978)
• Saw slides of car turning to hit a pedestrian
• Saw stop or yield sign
• “Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was at the ____
sign?” (consistent vs. inconsistent)
• Recognition test for correct photo of car with sign
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of misleading information on recall
• Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978)
• Misinformation effect: People incorrectly claim to remember the
misinformation (the yield sign)
Immediate
Consistent
75%
Inconsistent
40%
2 week delay
Inconsistent
20%
Misattribution & Misinformation
• Genuine alteration for the original memory
may be only one part of the memory distortion
explanation
• Three important effects:
• Source misattribution
• Misinformation acceptance
• Overconfidence in the accuracy of the memory
Source Misattribution
• The inability to distinguish whether the original
event or some later event was the source of the
information (misremember what we have
experienced)
• Did I remember the stop sign because it was actually in the
picture?
OR
• Because I thought about the the sign when I heard the questions?
Misinformation Acceptance
• Accepting additional information as having been
part of an earlier experience without actually
remembering that information (form memories on the
basis of suggestion from some other source)
• Do I remember the car speeding because it was?
OR
• Because the policeman said it was?
• Tendency grows stronger as more time elapses
Overconfidence in Memory
• Overconfidence comes from two factors:
• Source Memory: Memory of the exact source of the
information (original event, later information, or general
knowledge of the situation)
• Processing Fluency: The ease with which something is
processed or comes to mind (remember “sleep” too easily for
you to have imagined it)
Overconfidence in Memory
• We are surprisingly unaware of how unreliable our
memory can be and overly confident in the accuracy
of our memories
Roediger & McDermott (1995) study
• DRM paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott,
1995)
• Creates false memories in the lab
• DEMO (like the task that we saw Schacter give Alan Alda)
Studied list words - Accurate memories
(1) haystack
(2) sandals
(3) fright
(4) weather
(5) sharp
(6) hot
(7) creek
(8) king
(9) thread
(10) shoe
(11) winter
(12) tide
(13) airplane
(14) flow
(15) pretty
(16) ankle
(17) awake
(18) doctor
(19) frame
(20) jelly
(21) top
(22) jazz
(23) sugar
(24) needle
(25) rye
(26) melody
(27) spider
(28) music
(29) girl
(30) bread
(31) sweet
(32) stream
(33) soft
(34) river
(35) jail
(36) glacier
(37) thief
(38) hill
(39) power
(40) butter
(41) foot
(42) father
(43) jagged
(44) door
(45) throne
(46) money
(47) mountain
(48) steal
Critical theme words - False memories
(1) haystack
(2) sandals
(3) fright
(4) weather
(5) sharp
(6) hot
(7) creek
(8) king
(9) thread
(10) shoe
(11) winter
(12) tide
(13) airplane
(14) flow
(15) pretty
(16) ankle
(17) awake
(18) doctor
(19) frame
(20) jelly
(21) top
(22) jazz
(23) sugar
(24) needle
(25) rye
(26) melody
(27) spider
(28) music
(29) girl
(30) bread
(31) sweet
(32) stream
(33) soft
(34) river
(35) jail
(36) glacier
(37) thief
(38) hill
(39) power
(40) butter
(41) foot
(42) father
(43) jagged
(44) door
(45) throne
(46) money
(47) mountain
(48) steal
DRM Paradigm
• The lists rely on properties of semantic association
• Words that are similar in meaning or co-occur in language
are associates
• Activation of a concept spreads to related concepts in the
network
DRM Paradigm
• The lists rely on properties of semantic association
thief
foot
steal
shoe
robber hand
crook
toe
burglar kick
money sandals
cop
soccer
bad
yard
rob
walk
jail
ankle
bread
butter
food
eat
sandwich
rye
jam
milk
flour
jelly
king
mountain
queen hill
crown valley
castle climb
England summit
throne
top
ruler
molehill
prince
peak
royalty plain
power
glacier
needle
thread
pin
eye
sewing
sharp
point
prick
thimble
haystack
DRM Paradigm
Roediger & McDermott (1995)
• Recall: ~ 40% recalled
“sleep”
• Recognition: Remembering
the lure (sleep) during recall
strengthened participants
memories of the lure during
recognition
• Participants claimed to
“remember” the lure rather
than merely “know” it had
been on the list
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Studied
Critical
Lure
DRM Paradigm
• Recent studies indicate it is very robust
• Replicated may times
• Explicit warnings fail to eliminate the effect
• May see a reduction in the effect
• As the number of list items increases, rate of false
recollection increases (Robinson & Roediger, 1997)
Spreading Activation
Model
Example
queen
ruler
crown
throne
England
prince
king
jewel
castle
power
royalty
Theoretical explanations
• Activation-source monitoring
• Lure is consciously or unconsciously activated
• Activation is automatic
• High activation results in false recollection
Theoretical explanations
• Activation-source monitoring
• Memories for imagined events are attributed to other
source
• Participants think they studied items they thought
about
• Increased familiarity
Theoretical explanations
• Fuzzy-trace theory
• Information is encoded in two formats
• Gist - meaning
• Verbatim - details
• List memory = verbatim + gist
• Lure memory = gist only
Theoretical explanations
• Scripts
- We use knowledge about known events to fill in
missing info
Individual differences
• Young children are less susceptible to DRM
paradigm
• Have not yet developed associations
• But they are easily influenced by suggestive
questioning
• Older adults are more susceptible to the illusion
• Rely more on gist than verbatim traces
Recovered Memories
• A person remembers a traumatic event from many
years ago
• The memory was “repressed”, but is now recovered
in therapy
• Intentional forgetting of painful or traumatic
experiences
• Little empirical evidence for this type of forgetting
(could have the opposite effect)
Recovered Memories
• Therapies included…
• Hypnosis (uses imagery, suggestive questioning, &
repetition)
• Guided Imagery (for now, just imagine that you were
abused by your father)
• Body Work (recovering memories from your muscles)
• Drug Therapies (sodium amytal, mostly)
Recovered Memories
• 1990’s: A big spike in cases of people in
therapy recovering memories of childhood
sexual abuse
• Often early abuse (e.g., infancy)
• “Courage to Heal”: General premise that we
were all abused as children, we need help to
remember
• Even if there is no evidence and we have no
recollection of being abused
• San Diego Reader: Ads identifying symptoms
Recovered vs. false
memories
• Several techniques to recover memories also can
create false memories
•
•
•
•
•
Hypnosis
Repeated retrieval attempts
Guessing (The courage to heal)
Imagination
Repeated exposure to stories of abuse
Recovered memories
• Could some of the recovered memories be false?
• If it is possible to create false memories, then some
recovered memories might be false
Recovered memories
• McNally (2003) – review of several studies
• Identified 4 groups
•
•
•
•
Repressed memory
Recovered memory
Continuous memory
Control
Recovered memories
• McNally (cont.)
• No differences in terms of personality traits between
continuous & control
• Repressed scored higher than all other groups in terms of
negative affectivity
• Repressed also reported more dissociative & PTSD symptoms
• Repressed & recovered scored higher in terms of fantasy
proneness
Recovered memories
• Recovered are more likely than control to develop
FM in laboratory paradigms
• Clancy et al. (2002)
• Ss reported being abducted by aliens
• Exhibited robust FM effects
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Modification of Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork (1994)
• (see Blackboard Media Library Optional Readings to
download a pdf of this paper if you want to read more)
• Question: Can the retrieval of some items impact the
retrieval of others?
• e.g., Suppose that you are studying for a test. You decide to
study half the material. Does studying half the material have
an impact on the half of the material that you didn’t study?
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Stimuli: 4 categories
• Drinks, Weapons, Fish, Fruits
• Six exemplars from each category
• Write out category and exemplar on index cards
• The full list of 24 items is
in the detailed instructions
• Subjects: find 3 willing
participants
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases
• Study phase: subs will study all categories and exemplars
• Shuffle all of the cards, read Study phase 1 instructions, present
each card to subject for 3 seconds in random order
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases
• Practice phase: subs will attempt to remember some of the
studied items (half from 2 of the categories) by coming up with
exemplars with cues (category and first letter)
• Give practice phase recall sheet to subject, Read practice phase
instructions to subject, give subs category and first letter (see ordered
list in detailed instructions) and give them 15 secs to practice it before
moving to next item
• “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”,
“weapons – t”
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases
• Distractor phase: complete a city generation task
• Read distractor phase instructions, Give distractor US Cities Task
sheet
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases
• Test phase: free recall of all studied items (by category)
• Read test phase instructions, give recall test response sheets (1 for
each of the 4 categories)
• Give 30 seconds for recall for each category
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Subject #1
Data
Sample data
Banana
Orange
Lemon
Tomato
Club
Sword
Bomb
Guppy
Trout
Ale
Rum
Vodka
Beer
Practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Non-practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Control # recalled
% (divide # by 12)
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Subject #1
Data
Sample data
Banana
Orange
Lemon
Tomato
Club
Sword
Bomb
Guppy
Trout
Ale
Rum
Vodka
Beer
Practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
3
3/6 = 50%
Non-practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Control # recalled
% (divide # by 12)
“drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Subject #1
Data
Sample data
Banana
Orange
Lemon
Tomato
Club
Sword
Bomb
Guppy
Trout
Ale
Rum
Vodka
Beercount
Don’t
“beer”, not
on list
Practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Non-practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
3
3/6 = 50%
3
3/6 = 50%
Control # recalled
% (divide # by 12)
“drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory
(Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Subject #1
Data
Sample data
Banana
Orange
Lemon
Tomato
Club
Sword
Bomb
Guppy
Trout
Ale
Rum
Vodka
Beercount
Don’t
“beer”, not
on list
Practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Non-practiced # recalled
3
3/6 = 50%
3
% (divide # by 6)
3/6 = 50%
Control # recalled
6
% (divide # by 12)
6/12 = 50%
“drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”