The Nature of Memory and False Memories - Essay Example

? False memory in the DRM paradigm Insert (s) False memory refers to the distorted recollection of events that did not actually happen. Generally, human memory is often prone to fallacies and the memory of an experience can easily be distorted by a diverse number of factors such as by confusing the fragments and details of the memory of events. The primary aim of this experiment is to explore occurrence of false memories. The procedure used (DRM procedure) involved presenting a list of thematically and semantically related words to the participants. Each of the subjects were required to recall as many words as possible and the results were then recorded and analyzed in order to determine the number of related but non presented words. False memory in the DRM paradigm Introduction Memory plays a critical role in our daily lives. This is particularly because our decisions, course of actions and interactions with situations or people are often based on our memory of the past experiences. It is, however, worth noticing that memory sometimes fails and individuals may often remember events either differently from what actually took place or events that never happened (Thapar and McDermott, 2001, 424). Many experimental researches have revealed that it is easy to implant or induce false memory in individuals, particularly through prodding and suggestions. This is particularly because memories are generally susceptible to a number of interferences and can easily be altered, lost and even recreated. In this regard, new knowledge acquired can influence our memories of the past there by making it difficult to determine which memories actually occurred. According to McDermott andWatson (2001, p.174), the probability of false recall is significantly influenced by the duration of presentation time. Although the other variables may also impact on false recall, the authors argued that presentation duration produces is relatively proportional to the likelihood of accurate or false recall. Additionally, Loftus and Hoffman (1989, p.101) suggest that interferences by later events have also been known to be one of the most important causes of distortion of memories. There are a number of ways that can be used to study and determine the nature of false memories. The Deese-Roediger-McDermott procedure, commonly known as (DRM) paradigm, is generally an effective approach that is increasingly being used to distinguish false memories from the genuine ones (Roedigger and McDermott, 1995, p.803). This experiment investigates the probability of occurrence of false recall as well as some of the important factors that may influence both false memory and recognition. Methods Participants 20 students from a psychology class were selected as participants in the experiment. Each individual participant was presented with five lists of related words that had a strong association but non-presented lure. This list consisted of non-recognized items that provided a dependant variable that lied between zero and five. The range up to five meant that all the non-presented targets lures were recognized as having been presented in the study. Materials A list of thematically and semantically related words such as table, seat, desk, bench and stool among others were presented to each of the 20 participants. Just like in Deese’s experiment, the chosen words had strong association with the target word and the corresponding list was constructed using fifteen prototypical associates, with the highly associated being the first and least associated arranged in the last position. In this regard, two hundred and sixty words were represented with each testing phase showing a maximum of five in each list. Procedure All the experiments were carried out in a computer room where each participant was presented with a computer message providing instructions, and required to quietly read the words and attempt recall as many of them as possible. Immediately after displaying the different word lists, participants were given recognition tests that included some of the presented words as well as some new words the target non presented allures such as the word “Chair.” Next, the participants were provided with 5 lists of related words each of which had only strongly associated but not presented allure. After presentation, some new words were included, among them was the target non-presented lures, such as “chair”. The participant were given to recognize the lure on a scale that ranged from 0 to 5 that ranged as (no falsely recognized items) to (all non-presented target lures recognized as having been presented) and the time each word stayed on the screed noted. The dependent variable in the presentation ranged from 0 (indicating the absence of falsely recognized items) to 5 (indicating that all non-presented target lures have been recognized as having been presented). On the other hand, the independent variables included the presentation rate of the words as well as the time each of the words stayed on the screen (Which was one seconds, two seconds or three seconds). Lastly, a simple test was performed to ensure that the participants had recognized the difference between recollection and familiarity. The test that consisted of four examples provided accentuate on the independence of each factor. This included recognition of whether the words were previously represented in the test or a representation was not available. Results Figure1. Descriptive Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound one-second 67 3.9552 1.09313 .13355 3.6886 4.2219 .00 5.00 two-second 45 3.7111 1.01404 .15116 3.4065 4.0158 2.00 5.00 three-second 47 3.6170 1.17127 .17085 3.2731 3.9609 .00 5.00 Total 159 3.7862 1.09870 .08713 3.6141 3.9583 .00 5.00 The descriptive statistics revealed the mean for one second presentation rates was 3.96.On the other hand, the mean for two second was 3.7 while the mean for three second was 3.6 words remembered. Consequently the results suggested that the number of words remembered increased with the decrease in the length of presentation time.  Figure2. ANOVA lures Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between the Groups 3.513 2 1.757 1.464 .235 Within the Groups 187.216 156 1.200 Total 190.730 158 The above table presents the experimental results of the 1 Way between the Subjects ANOVA which was conducted to help compare the effect of presentation duration on the recall of related but non-presented words (false recall). Generally, the Sig value can be used to whether the condition means were different or the same. According to the results, the Sig Value was 0.235. The value is less than .05 and, therefore, it can be concluded that there was a statistically significant difference between the mean of the remembered words for all the independent variable lures (one seconds, two seconds or three seconds). Figure 3. Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: lures (I) group (J) group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD one-second two-second .24411 .21114 .481 -.2555 .7437 three-second .33820 .20844 .239 -.1550 .8314 two-second one-second -.24411 .21114 .481 -.7437 .2555 three-second .09409 .22848 .911 -.4466 .6347 three-second one-second -.33820 .20844 .239 -.8314 .1550 two-second -.09409 .22848 .911 -.6347 .4466 LSD one-second two-second .24411 .21114 .249 -.1730 .6612 three-second .33820 .20844 .107 -.0735 .7499 two-second one-second -.24411 .21114 .249 -.6612 .1730 three-second .09409 .22848 .681 -.3572 .5454 three-second one-second -.33820 .20844 .107 -.7499 .0735 two-second -.09409 .22848 .681 -.5454 .3572 The figures presented in the multiple comparisons reveals all the values at the Sig. Column are greater than .05. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is no statistically significant differences between the dependent variables that are being compared. lures group N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 TukeyHSDa,b three-second 47 3.6170 two-second 45 3.7111 one-second 67 3.9552 Sig. .264 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Used the Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 51.349. b. The group sizes were unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes was used. Type I error levels were not guaranteed. The post hoc comparisons of the independent variable lures using Tukey HSD test suggested that the mean score for the one second was 3.96 was significantly different from the three seconds lure which was 3.6. Discussion In most cases, the DRM procedure is often used to shed light on false memory by focusing on the likelihood of the participants to mistakenly recall related but non presented words in the list that was given. The experimental results presented in the tables above revealed a number of findings. One of the primary findings was that for all the semantically associated lists, the probability of false recall was significantly influenced by the duration of the presentation. For example, the number of non presented words remembered (false recalls) increased with the increase in the length of presentation duration (McDermott and Watson, 2001, p.161). As evidenced in the experimental results, the majority of the participants recalled a non-presented but related word and this is, therefore, an indication of memory of an event which never actually occurred (false memory). The second major finding noted in the experiment was that phonologically related list of words exhibited both differences and similarities in false recall as compared to the semantic lists. The phonologically induced false memory, however, showed significant declines across the presentation durations. For example, the one way between subjects ANOVA comparison results suggested that there was a statistically significant difference between the mean of the remembered words for all the independent variable lures. For example, the Sig Value was 0.235 and this was far less than .05. According to Loftus and Hoffman (1989, p.102), some of the factors that may significantly contribute to false memory include misattribution of the original sources of the information, an individuals existing memories and knowledge as well as misinformation or mistaken recollection. For example, a false memory may arise from the inferences an individual made during a particular event. This is because people usually tend to use prior knowledge to figure out and make sense of what happened in the past. When this happens, the prior knowledge may result in disinformation of the actual events that took place. On the other hand, false memory is sometimes attributed to exposure to similar events which sometimes tend to create illusionary memories making an individual to confuse the original event or sound with the one that it resemble. In my opinion, future experiments and studies should focus on the significance as well as interactions between some of the factors that influence production of false memory and false recognition. Consequently, the question whether the DRM effect is false response or false memory can only be answered when the research design does not rely on the subjective experiences of the participants. Conclusion In conclusion, the results of the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) procedure clearly showed that many subjects recalled related but no-presented words in the list of thematically and semantically related words. Additionally, it can be deduced that the probability of false recall is dependent on the duration of the presentation given the fact that the number of non presented words remembered (false recalls) increased with the increase in the length of presentation duration. References Loftus, E.F., & Hoffman, H.G.1989. Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology,118, pp.100-104. McDermott, K. B & Watson, J. M. 2001. The rise and fall of false recall: The impact of presentation duration. Journal of Memory and Language , 45. P.p 160- 176. Roedigger, H. L.III. & McDermott, K. B.1995. Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 21, P.p 803- 814. Thapar, A., & McDermott, K. B. 2001. False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: Effects of retention interval and level of processing. Memory & Cognition, 19, pp. 424- 432. Read More