Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Oliveira, H. M.
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Albuquerque, P. B., Saraiva, M.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/16734
Resumo: The Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm is often used in the study of false memories. This paradigm typically uses lists of words associated with one critical lure. The primary objective of our study was to understand the production of false memories using the DRM paradigm when lists of words are associated with two critical lures. Three experiments were performed, and it was observed that the critical lures associated with the first set were significantly more frequently recalled than the critical lures associated with the second set. This result was verified when the words were presented in descending order of association with the critical lure (Experiment 1), when the words of the second set were presented in ascending order of association with the critical lure (Experiment 2), and when all the words in the list had the same associative strength (Experiment 3). Results are explained by the activation/monitoring and fuzzy-trace theories.
id RCAP_e72ed562a8a9f02044daddd64832ea7a
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/16734
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?DRMFalse memoriesFuzzy-trace theoryActivation/monitoring frameworkCritical lureThe Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm is often used in the study of false memories. This paradigm typically uses lists of words associated with one critical lure. The primary objective of our study was to understand the production of false memories using the DRM paradigm when lists of words are associated with two critical lures. Three experiments were performed, and it was observed that the critical lures associated with the first set were significantly more frequently recalled than the critical lures associated with the second set. This result was verified when the words were presented in descending order of association with the critical lure (Experiment 1), when the words of the second set were presented in ascending order of association with the critical lure (Experiment 2), and when all the words in the list had the same associative strength (Experiment 3). Results are explained by the activation/monitoring and fuzzy-trace theories.Routledge/Taylor and Francis2018-11-05T11:56:18Z2019-01-01T00:00:00Z20192019-03-13T12:33:14Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10071/16734eng1747-021810.1177/1747021818761002Oliveira, H. M.Albuquerque, P. B.Saraiva, M.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-09T17:41:13Zoai:repositorio.iscte-iul.pt:10071/16734Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:19:08.537355Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
title Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
spellingShingle Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
Oliveira, H. M.
DRM
False memories
Fuzzy-trace theory
Activation/monitoring framework
Critical lure
title_short Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
title_full Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
title_fullStr Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
title_full_unstemmed Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
title_sort Associative strength or gist extraction: which matters when DRM lists have two critical lures?
author Oliveira, H. M.
author_facet Oliveira, H. M.
Albuquerque, P. B.
Saraiva, M.
author_role author
author2 Albuquerque, P. B.
Saraiva, M.
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Oliveira, H. M.
Albuquerque, P. B.
Saraiva, M.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv DRM
False memories
Fuzzy-trace theory
Activation/monitoring framework
Critical lure
topic DRM
False memories
Fuzzy-trace theory
Activation/monitoring framework
Critical lure
description The Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm is often used in the study of false memories. This paradigm typically uses lists of words associated with one critical lure. The primary objective of our study was to understand the production of false memories using the DRM paradigm when lists of words are associated with two critical lures. Three experiments were performed, and it was observed that the critical lures associated with the first set were significantly more frequently recalled than the critical lures associated with the second set. This result was verified when the words were presented in descending order of association with the critical lure (Experiment 1), when the words of the second set were presented in ascending order of association with the critical lure (Experiment 2), and when all the words in the list had the same associative strength (Experiment 3). Results are explained by the activation/monitoring and fuzzy-trace theories.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-11-05T11:56:18Z
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
2019
2019-03-13T12:33:14Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10071/16734
url http://hdl.handle.net/10071/16734
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1747-0218
10.1177/1747021818761002
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Routledge/Taylor and Francis
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Routledge/Taylor and Francis
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134750660624384