Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 2042–2048 Friday Noon
presenting cues with either a small or a large number of semantic associates
(set size), using either an extralist (target studied alone) or an intralist
(cue–target studied together) cuing procedure. Set size effects
were obtained for both younger and older adults for extralist cuing and
were eliminated for younger adults for intralist cuing. However, for older
adults, cue set size effects were not eliminated, indicating that older
adults were not able to discount associates not related to both the cue and
the target. Metamemory sensitivity tracked recall for both age groups.
Metamemory accuracy was evaluated for both recall and recognition
memory. Predictions of adults in both age groups were equally accurate.
Predictions were less accurate for recognition than for recall. The findings
are discussed in terms of potential theoretical implications.
(2042)
How Does Performing a Dual Task Influence Imagination Inflation?
ERIKO SUGIMORI & TAKASHI KUSUMI, Kyoto University—How
does performing a dual task influence imagination inflation? In Experiment
1, participants enacted or imagined enacting each task either
once or three times with or without a dual task. Imagination inflation
increased as the number of enactments increased in the dual-task condition.
Experiments 2 and 3 involved three phases: learning, performing,
and monitoring. During the learning phase, participants enacted
each task either once or three times. During the performing
phase, they either enacted or imagined enacting the tasks with or without
a dual task. During the monitoring phase, they judged whether
they were successful in carrying out the tasks in the performing phase.
Monitoring errors increased as the number of enactments increased
during the learning phase in the dual-task condition. We concluded
that the dual task reduced the amount of cues for judging memory
sources, thereby forcing participants to rely on memory strength to determine
whether they enacted or imagined enacting the tasks.
(2043)
Strategy Adaptivity in Long-Term Recall: Relation to Individual
Differences in Working Memory. AINSLEY L. MITCHUM, COL-
LEEN M. KELLEY, & EDWARD T. COKELY, Florida State University—We
explore the relation between individual differences in working
memory as measured by complex span tasks, encoding strategy,
and strategy adaptivity in long-term free recall. Participants first studied
a list of words and were tested via free recall; they then studied
and were tested on a second list. We propose that high-span participants
are more likely to change from a relatively ineffectual to a more
efficient encoding strategy in response to poor performance on a first
test. Complex span scores were positively correlated with recall on the
second list, but not with recall on the first list. Concurrent and retrospective
verbal protocols, as well as postexperimental questionnaires,
were used to assess the role of encoding strategies in these relationships.
In addition, we discuss whether encoding strategies mediate resistance
to interference.
(2044)
Strategic Use of Report Option in Episodic Recognition: Multiple
Criteria or Monitoring System? JEFFREY J. STARNS, SEAN M.
LANE, JILL ALONZO, & CRISTINE ROUSSEL, Louisiana State
University—In memory tasks employing a report option, people can
decide whether or not they will attempt a memory decision based on
their confidence that they will be correct. The Koriat and Goldsmith
(1996) model proposes that confidence judgments are made by a monitoring
system separate from the retrieval system. In signal detection
theory (SDT), confidence is based directly on the familiarity of the
retrieval probe. In three experiments, we tested the ability of SDT to
accommodate performance on memory tasks with a report option. The
models were able to fit the report option data by adjusting a low and
a high criterion and declining to attempt a recognition decision for test
items that fell between the two criteria. The results suggest that report
option performance can be explained with an initial retrieval process
using strategic placement of response criteria along the familiarity
continuum, without relying on a separate monitoring system.
76
(2045)
Remember and Know Judgments for True and False Memories in
Autobiographical Memory Reports. KATINKA DIJKSTRA &
MINE MISIRLISOY, Florida State University—The study investigated
how well people recognize alterations in their original memory
records. Thirty-five older participants (mean age = 72.63 years) were
given a survey including 16 memories that they had to evaluate as
being or not being the same memory as the one that they had provided
a year ago. Four of these 16 memories were authentic, 4 were memories
in which one component was altered (activity, participant, location,
or time component), rendering the memory false, and 8 were
fillers. Memories were evaluated on remember–know and confidence
judgments and a subset of the Memory Characteristic Questionnaire
by Mather et al. (1997). Percentage of “yes” answers to true memories,
false memories, and filler memories were 84%, 39%, and 14%,
respectively. Altering the “time” information resulted in more false
memories than did altering other dimensions (activity, participant, or
location). In addition, results showed that remember–know and confidence
judgments did not differentiate between true and false memories.
(2046)
The Recognition Without Cued Recall Phenomenon: Familiarity-
Based Recognition? ANNE M. CLEARY, Iowa State University—
Recognition without cued recall is the finding that, in the absence of
cued recall, participants give higher recognition confidence ratings to
cues that resemble studied items than to cues that do not (Cleary,
2004). For example, bushel will receive higher ratings when bashful
was studied than when no word looking like it was studied, even when
the word bashful cannot be recalled in response to bushel. In Experiment
1, this phenomenon was shown to extend to a yes–no testing situation.
Experiment 2 used a remember–know variation of the yes–no
testing situation. Here, the recognition without cued recall effect was
shown to emerge in the form of “know” judgments: “Know” judgments
discriminated between cues that resembled studied words and
cues that did not, which is consistent with the idea that subjective feelings
of familiarity underlie this effect. Also examined were the effects
of divided attention and the correlations between memory measures.
(2047)
A Novel Item Analysis of JOLs and Recall Performance. CATRIONA
M. MORRISON & CHRISTOPHER J. A. MOULIN, University of
Leeds, & TIMOTHY J. PERFECT, University of Plymouth (sponsored
by Karl-Heinz Bäuml)—Judgments of learning (JOLs) are estimates
of the likelihood of future recall. Debate focuses on the bases on
which JOLs are made. In a novel items analysis design, we examined
intrinsic features of word stimuli and their predictive strength for
JOLs and recall, with a view to establishing the mnemonic basis of
JOLs. Correlational analyses suggested that a model that includes
JOLs is a better fit to recall data than is a model with stimulus characteristics
alone, suggesting a mnemonic basis for JOLs and privileged
access to memory processes. There were notable differences in
the analyses of JOLs and recall: Word familiarity and age of acquisition
were key predictors of JOLs and recall; imageability was significant
for recall, not for JOLs; and word frequency did not influence
either. This is discussed in relation to theoretical accounts of memory
monitoring and recall. The roles of lexical measures, including age of
acquisition, are considered.
(2048)
Electrodermal Recognition Without Identification: A Relation Between
the Autonomic Response and Familiarity-Based Recognition?
ALISON L. MORRIS, ANNE M. CLEARY, & MARY L. STILL,
Iowa State University—Recognition without identification is the finding
that, on tests of recognition, participants can discriminate between
studied and nonstudied items when the items are presented in such a
way that their identification is hindered. In each of four study–test
blocks, participants viewed 15 study words at a rate of 2 sec each and
were then presented with a 30-item recognition test list; 15 items were