Final Proposal

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |1 Running Head: PROCESSING AND COLLABORATION ON FALSE MEMORY

The Effects of Levels of Processing and Collaborative Recall on Memory Errors

Maureen Angelica Ablan Roxanne Therese Delay Geraldine Clare Marie Paguntalan Jammin Tanioka University of the Philippines, Diliman

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |2 The Effects of Levels of Processing and Collaborative Recall on Memory Errors Experimentally creating false memories has attracted the attention of psychologist and the public as well. False memories are occurrences when an individual remember events that never occurred or recalling the event in a different manner (Roediger & Mcdermott, 1995; Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000; Gleaves, Smith, Butler, & Spiegel, 2004). For the past years, there has been an influx in the number of studies focusing on false memories (Roediger & Mcdermott, 1995; Basden, Basden, Thomas, & Souphasit, 1997; Takahashi, 2007) of which can be credited to Barlett (1932) for having pioneered the study on false memories. Barlett (1932) had his participants read an Indian folk tale title “The war of the Ghosts” and had the participants recall it repeatedly. Although there was no data that was presented, memory distortion was evident in his results as the participants recalled the story repeatedly. Although subsequent researches tried to reproduce Barlett’s research (Gauld & Stephenson, 1967; Roediger, Wheeler, & Rajaram, 1993) but were never successful in replicating his results. Even there were no explicit results that show memory distortions; Barlett (1932) nevertheless, differentiated reproductive and reconstructive memories. Reproductive memories are accurate and precise memories that is usually whole as it is, while reconstructive memories are memories that are ‘rebuilt’ during recall. Reconstructive memories are usually source of distortion because during the reconstruction of the memories, there would be a tendency to over or

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |3 under-recall the event (Barlett, 1932). This concept is applied to Barlett’s study, which used a prose where the recall could categorize to reconstructive memory because while recalling, there is a need to fill in the spaces between each thought. Deese (1959) was interested in the false recall of a non-listed word from a list of words that are related to this critical word. He developed 36 lists containing 12 words per list. The 12 words that were on each list were related to a critical non-listed word. Deese showed that subjects were induced by several list into remembering the critical non-presented word. Subjects were lured to falsely recalling the non-listed word due to the backward association of the subjects with the listed words and the non-listed words (Deese, 1959). Roediger and McDermott (1995) adapted Deese’s paradigm (1959) and conducted two experiments. The first experiment was basically a replication as well as, a verification of Deese’s paradigm. On the second experiment, Roediger and McDermott added additional words on each list making it a 15-word list, instead of a 12-word list that Deese have developed. It was found out that a list of 15 words was able to produce more instances to recall the not presented words than a list of 12 words that Deese have developed. Results also show that the level of confidence that the word was presented was high (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Through the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Paradigm, false memories were able to be essentially quantified. The probability of recalling the common, not listed and semantically related word was the measure of false memory (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995).

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |4 The underlying concept behind why false memories are produced have several angles on which it was theorized (e.g. Underwood, 1965; Ayers and Reder, 1998). Underwood’s (1965) proposal was that when participants were presented a word, they implicitly create then activate an associate of that word. Upon retrieval, they may recall the associate word because they have already been activated even though it was not presented. Furthermore, Ayers and Reder (1998) proposed the source of activation confusion (SAC) model where the number of times that the associate word was activated increases the recall of the associate word. In simpler terms, the associate word was primed through the words on the list that could activate the word associated to it. Another approach that explains the occurrence of false memories is the levels-of-processing model (Craik & Lochart, 1972). The premise of this model is that “deep”-level process (e.g. thinking about meanings of the word) would produce more accurate recollection and in turn would produce less false memories. Whereas, “superficial”-level processing (e.g. counting the vowels of the word) would lead to poor memory performance. Rhodes and Anastasi’s (2000) findings was intriguing when compared to the proposed levels-of-processing model by Craik and Lochart (1972). The results were parallel, as well as, contrary to the levels-of-processing model that suggests that deeper-level processing would yield a more accurate recalls. It is parallel because through the deeper-level processing, participants were able to recall more

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |5 words listed, but on the contrary, they also were able to falsely recall the critical not-listed word (Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000). Newstead and Newstead (1998) proposed that there could be several contributors to false memories that could be facilitated through the DRM paradigm. Newstead and Newstead coupled the DRM paradigm with four different instructions for each group of participants. One group was instructed to think about the meanings of the words, the next was to relate them to personal experience, the third group was to create images of the words, and was to chain the words into a sentence (Newstead & Newstead, 1998). They manipulated the method in such a way that it would be in anticipation of the experimental group. The presentation of the list words where at a rate of one word per 5 seconds, which was higher than what the previous studies have done (Newstead & Newstead, 1998). Newstead and Newstead found out that there is no significant difference of recalling not presented target words even upon instruction. Nevertheless, the memory for presented words improved in every experimental procedure compared to the control group (no instructions), but only elaboration and chaining yielded significant results (Newstead and Newstead, 1998). As far as the not listed words are concerned, manipulation of the methodology would yield false recall among the participants (Newstead & Newstead, 1998). The same holds through with the experimental group and the control group. The frequency of recalling a not listed word and the words in the middle of the list was the same, as for individual results is concerned (Newstead & Newstead, 1998). This trend was the same as for

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |6 the experimental and control group. Newstead & Newstead (1998) was very keen to point out that the occurrence of the mid-listed words has the same frequency with the not listed target words. Although there was not much elaboration was done by Newstead & Newstead, it confirmed the levels-of-processing model of Craik and Lochart (1972) that deeper-level-processing (thinking about the meaning and chaining) yielded more accurate recall than the superficial-level-processing (thinking about the image and the synonyms). A recent study shows that false recall facilitated by the DRM paradigm could be affected by collaborative efforts (Takahashi, 2007). Takahashi (2007) used collaborative inhibition to try to prove that nominal recall (a pair working individually) yields better memory results than collaborative recall (a pair working together). It is an adoption of Basden, Basden, Thomas, Sophasith’s (1998) findings that collaborative recall, when compared to nominal recall, yields fewer presented words but gave more not presented words. Basden et al mentioned that social loafing within the group have caused more false recalls among each group. Collaboration increases errors in recall when strong retrieval cues are present, so that cue-to-instance associative errors are likely, and there is group pressure to output items (Basden et al, 1998). Collaborating participants may not be able to recall accurately the presented words because collaboration may affect realitymonitoring process (Takahashi, 2007). Participants could not retrieve the presented words because they cannot discriminate it with the critical non-presented word. The closeness of the participants in the

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |7 experimental groups was also manipulated to see if there would be an effect on the false recall, whether they are friends or not (Takahashi, 2007). It was found out that collaboratively recalling produced less correct and false answers throughout the experimental groups, but it was inconsistent with what Basden et al (1998) has proposed (Takahashi, 2007). Factors that might have affected the results were clearly elaborated by Takahashi. Takahashi (2007) speculated that the number of collaborating participants may reduce the number of recalled not presented words. Takahashi mentioned that a pair working together may strategize, setup a strict monitoring process and giving each the capability to assess each word. Conversely, as Basden et al (1998) mentioned the pair may feel pressure of turn-taking in recalling and to relieve themselves, they would tend to loosen the monitoring process and commit more errors in recalling. There is not much literature about pairing social factors with cognitive processes. The effect of Craik and Lochart’s (1972) levelsof-processing has been established by verifying literatures (e.g. Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000; Newstead & Newstead, 1998) and could be used to work in conjunction with social factor such as proposed by Basden et al (1998). Deep-level processing would yield better memory performance than superficial-level processing (Craik & Lochart, 1972) and collaboratively recalling the word list would increase the rate of falsely recalling the not listed words (Basden et al, 1998). Thus, it could be argued that pairing superficial-level processing with collaborative efforts would lead to a higher rate of falsely recalling

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |8 not listed words. The aim of the experiment is to see the effects of collaborative efforts and levels-of-processing in recalling not listed words. Method Participants One hundred thirty-five Introductory Psychology students will be participating in this study in partial fulfillment of course requirements. Materials Eight 15-word lists will be presented through an audio tape player in a consistent order. The words will be taken from Roediger and McDermott (1995). Each list will be recorded on an audio tape by a female voice at the rate of 5 seconds per word. After each list, there is one-minute pause that would immediately preceded by the word “recall”. Writing materials necessary for the experiment will be provided by the experimenters. A fish bowl containing draw lots for pairing the participants will also be used. Procedure All the participants would be given and informed consent prior to engaging in the experiment. The participants will be assigned randomly to the six treatment conditions, alone-no instruction (15 participants), pair-no instruction (15 pairs), alone-superficial (15 participants), pairsuperficial (15 pairs), alone-deep level (15 participants), and pairdeep level (15 pairs).

Processing and Collaboration: Memory |9 In all the conditions, participants will be presented with eight lists of 15 words in a consistent order through the use of a previously recorded tape. After each list, a one-minute pause will be included in the recorded tape and will be followed by the word “recall”. Upon presentation of the word “recall”, participants would be asked to recall the words on the list as much as they could. There would be eight recalls, as there are eight lists. For each list, they would be given two minutes for recalling the words. In alone conditions, the participant will be asked to individually recall and write down as much words as they can remember for two minutes. On the other hand, for pair conditions, the same procedure applies except that each participant will be randomly assigned with a pair with whom they will collaboratively recall the words presented to them. For the deep-level processing condition, the participants will be given a strategic cognitive process of thinking of the definition of the presented word. Whereas in the superficial condition, they will be asked to count the number of syllables. For no instruction, no strategic cognitive process will be given, only core instructions. The five-second between each word would be the time used by the participants to perform the cognitive tasks.

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 10 References Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1-21. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., Thomas, R. L., III, & Souphasith, S. (1998). Memory distortion in group recall. Current Psychology, 16, 225–246. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17-22. Gauld, A., & Stephenson, G. M. (1967). Some experiments related to Bartlett's theory of remembering. British Journal of Psychology, 58, 39-49. Gleaves, D. H., Smith, S. M., Butler, L. D., & Spiegel, D. (2004). False and recovered memories in the laboratory and clinic: A review of experimental and clinical evidence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 3–28. Newstead, B. A., Newstead, S. E. (1998). False Recall and False Memory: The Effects of Instructions on Memory Errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 67-79.

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 11 Roediger, H. L. and McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory & Cognition, 21, 803-814. Roediger, H. L., HI, Wheeler, M. A., & Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering, knowing, and reconstructing the past. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 97-134). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rhodes, M.G., Anastasi, J.S. (2000). The effects of a levels-ofprocessing manipulation on false recall. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7 (1), 158-162. Sugrue, K., Hayne, H. (2006). False Memories Produce by Children and Adults in the DRM Paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 625631. Takahashi, M. (2007) Does Collaborative Remembering reduce False Memories? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 1-13. Underwood, B. J. (1965). False recognition produced by implicit verbal responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 122-129.

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 12 Informed Consent Project title: Name of investigator: How to contact the investigator: I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any point without penalty and that withdrawal will in no way jeopardize my standing at the University of the Philippines, Diliman. I understand that I will be asked to participate in a memory test for approximately an hour, and that I will receive due credit for my participation. My participation is subject to the following conditions: 1. That adequate safeguards will be provided to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of my responses. 2. That my name will not be used to ultimately identify my responses; instead, code numbers will be used. 3. That my individual scores will not be reported; instead, data will be reported as aggregate or group scores. The investigation has been described to me by the experimenter, who has answered all my questions.

___________________

____________________

_____

(participant's signature)

(investigator's signature)

(date)

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 13 Participant Instructions: Alone-no instruction treatment condition

“This is a memory test. You will hear eight lists of 15 words. As each list is being presented you must try to remember all the words on the list. At the end of each list, there would be a one-minute pause and you will hear the word “recall”, upon hearing “recall”, you will try to recall and write down all the words you can remember on the provided paper. You will have two minutes for each list to recall words as much as you can.”

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 14 Participant Instructions: Pair-no instruction treatment condition

“This is a memory test. You will hear eight lists of 15 words. As each list is being presented you must try to remember all the words on the list. At the end of each list, there would be a one-minute pause and you will hear the word “recall”, upon hearing “recall”, you will try to recall and write down all the words you can remember on the provided paper with your partner. You will have two minutes for each list to recall words as much as you can.”

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 15 Participant Instructions: Alone-superficial treatment condition

“This is a memory test. You will hear eight lists of 15 words. As each list is being presented you must count the number of syllables of each word and try to remember all the words on the list. At the end of each list, there would be a one-minute pause and you will hear the word “recall”, upon hearing “recall”, you will try to recall and write down all the words you can remember on the provided paper. You will have two minutes for each list to recall words as much as you can.”

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 16 Participant Instructions: Pair-superficial treatment condition

“This is a memory test. You will hear eight lists of 15 words. As each list is being presented you must count the number of syllables of each word and try to remember all the words on the list. At the end of each list, there would be a one-minute pause and you will hear the word “recall”, upon hearing “recall”, you will try to recall and write down all the words you can remember on the provided paper with your partner. You will have two minutes for each list to recall words as much as you can.”

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 17 Participant Instructions: Alone-deep level treatment condition

“This is a memory test. You will hear eight lists of 15 words. As each list is being presented you must think of the definition of each word and try to remember all the words on the list. At the end of each list, there would be a one-minute pause and you will hear the word “recall”, upon hearing “recall”, you will try to recall and write down all the words you can remember on the provided paper. You will have two minutes for each list to recall words as much as you can.”

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 18 Participant Instructions: Pair-deep level treatment condition

“This is a memory test. You will hear eight lists of 15 words. As each list is being presented you must think of the definition of each word and try to remember all the words on the list. At the end of each list, there would be a one-minute pause and you will hear the word “recall”, upon hearing “recall”, you will try to recall and write down all the words you can remember on the provided paper with your partner. You will have two minutes for each list to recall words as much as you can.”

P r o c e s s i n g a n d C o l l a b o r a t i o n : M e m o r y | 19 Word Lists: the words in bold are critical, not listed words. (Randomly picked and adapted from Roediger & McDermott, 1995)

ROUGH smooth bumpy road tough sandpaper jagged ready coarse uneven riders rugged sand boards ground gravel

SOFT hard light pillow plush loud cotton fur touch fluffy feather furry downy kitten skin tender

BREAD butter food eat sandwich rye jam milk flour jelly dough crust slice wine loaf toast

THIEF steal robber crook burglar money cop bad rob jail gun villain crime bank bandit criminal

SLEEP bed rest awake tired dream wake snooze blanket doze slumber snore nap peace yawn drowsy

SPIDER web insect bug fright fly arachnid crawl tarantula poison bite creepy animal ugly feelers small

MAN woman husband uncle lady mouse male father strong friend beard person handsome muscle suit old

SWEET sour candy sugar bitter good taste tooth nice honey soda chocolate heart cake tart pie