TY - JOUR
T1 - Working memory differences in illusory recollection of critical lures
AU - Bixter, Michael T.
AU - Daniel, Frances
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - In the present experiments, we explored the relationship between individual differences in working memory (WM) capacity and susceptibility to false recognitions and their accompanying subjective experiences. Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) associative lists were used to elicit false memories, and remember/know judgments were used to measure the recollective experiences accompanying recognition decisions. We found that WM capacity was related to false recognitions of nonpresented critical lures and to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures, such that higher WM capacity was associated with lower false-recognition rates and with lower proportions of remember responses. Importantly, these WM differences were only found when participants were forewarned about the nature of the DRM task prior to encoding (Exp. 1). When the forewarning was absent, WM capacity was not related to false recognitions or to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures (Exp. 2). These results support the controlled-attention view of WM and suggest that subjective experiences of falsely recognized lures fluctuate as a function of WM capacity.
AB - In the present experiments, we explored the relationship between individual differences in working memory (WM) capacity and susceptibility to false recognitions and their accompanying subjective experiences. Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) associative lists were used to elicit false memories, and remember/know judgments were used to measure the recollective experiences accompanying recognition decisions. We found that WM capacity was related to false recognitions of nonpresented critical lures and to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures, such that higher WM capacity was associated with lower false-recognition rates and with lower proportions of remember responses. Importantly, these WM differences were only found when participants were forewarned about the nature of the DRM task prior to encoding (Exp. 1). When the forewarning was absent, WM capacity was not related to false recognitions or to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures (Exp. 2). These results support the controlled-attention view of WM and suggest that subjective experiences of falsely recognized lures fluctuate as a function of WM capacity.
KW - False memories
KW - Illusory recollection
KW - Recognition judgments
KW - Remember/know
KW - Working memory capacity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879244526&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3758/s13421-013-0293-x
DO - 10.3758/s13421-013-0293-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 23345118
AN - SCOPUS:84879244526
SN - 0090-502X
VL - 41
SP - 716
EP - 725
JO - Memory and Cognition
JF - Memory and Cognition
IS - 5
ER -