Introduction
False memory refers to human memories that are either altered from the actual event or made up. Kloft et al.’s groundbreaking research revealed that an individual’s remembrance of past events is modified by their schemas and understandings of the present (2021). This concept served as a springboard for further research into a false memory. False memory understanding has significant applications in various societies, such as analyzing false recollections of abuse that patients have constructed in therapy (Maswood & Rajaram, 2019).
The memory of aspects of a famous Indian folktale was distorted by the cultural assumptions of the British participants. Patihis et al.’s groundbreaking research show that individuals’ reconstruction of previous events is influenced by their schemas and understandings of the present (2018). However, he provided little scientific support for this exciting contributor to his research was the distinction he drew between reproductive memory, as proved by his British subjects repeating a tale they had been heard, and reconstructive memory, as evidenced by participants being asked to ‘fill in’ the gaps of memory Nichols & Loftus, 2019). Our current research is focused on both of these types of memory – recall and recognition, respectively.
False memories are made-up events that are believed to be accurate but never happened or happened differently than they were remembered. The mind uses inferences and other previously known true truths to fill in information gaps. As memories compile into a narrative that bends the reality of an event into a personal truth, each individual’s bias while witnessing an event can lead to erroneous remembering. Whether legal or personal, human testimonies shape the outcomes of various events worldwide, so having a truthful recollection of events is critical. Faulty remembering tarnishes the quality of the lens through which that person sees the world and might lead to false beliefs. Understanding the causes of false memories is critical to raising awareness and reducing the likelihood of wrong memory formation.
Abadie and Camos research were crucial in detecting ‘externalized intrusions’ in free recall, but it was mostly neglected until Roediger and McDermott improved it later. When the two findings are combined, they provide a clearer picture of false memory resulting from activating semantic cognitive networks in the brain (Abadie & Camos, 2019). The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm was developed from the pooled research of Deese, Roediger, and Mcclellan and has been replicated in successive false memory tests. A DRM test usually involves giving participants a list of words, usually 12 terms, all semantically connected to a critical non-presented, or ‘lure,’ word. Despite the term to which all of the shown words are related was never delivered, many subjects confidently recall seeing it when asked to recollect the comments after each list is displayed.
The words ‘snooze,’ ‘bed,’ and other similar terms are offered, and the subject forms a false recollection of seeing the lure word ‘sleep’ (Murphy et al., 2020). According to Spreading Activation Theory, introducing each word activates a semantic network in the brain that includes the lure word, which explains the misleading memory (Houben et al., 2018). The lure word is finally encoded as a false memory as the same semantic network is continuously activated. Other studies have suggested it as an error in the encoding or retrieval process (Maswood & Rajaram, 2019) or a criterion shift adopted during retrieval. Still, neither Deese, Roediger, nor McDermott’s research explores the physiological basis for memory production (Houben et al. 2018). Regardless, the DRM paradigm is the bedrock of a lot of empirical research on false memory, and it’s at the heart of our study.
Experimenters have grown interested in what aspects could influence the power or potency of a false memory due to the fundamental question of whether or not false memories can be generated. The probability that a listed word semantically triggers the luring word is referred to as backward associative strength (AS) (Abadie & Camos, 2019). The likelihood of the list word ‘bed’ activating the lure word ‘sleep,” for example, is 638 (Houben et al. 2018). The higher the BAS, the greater the chance of encoding a false memory. The length of the lure word and ‘raw frequency,’ or the number of times the lure word appears in print, have both been found to alter the power of false memory. According to Houben et al.’s study, forewarning about false memories reduced inaccurate recollection but not unbeknownst of lure words (2018). The more extended presentation duration of list words lowers the faulty memory of a luring phrase.
False memories cannot be tracked back to a single cause; instead, they are caused by factors. The fuzzy-trace theory can explain how false memories are created. To build a memory, people make “verbatim traces of events at times and only gist traces at other times,” according to the fuzzy-trace hypothesis. This approach means that the gist of the event heavily influences the overall remembrance of an event. Individuals, particularly children, are recognized for inferring situations based on essence gathered while compiling previously known information to recollect aspects of events (Houben et al. 2018). “The introduction of unpleasant information, whether genuine or misleading, may raise the likelihood of further unfavorable elements becoming activated in memory,” for example. Furthermore, the type of information presented impacts how likely it is to be reflected in the recalled memory.
False memories have been a matter of debate among psychologists in the hopes of discovering triggers that increase the possibility of them occurring. The fictional notion that memory is analogous to a recording of an event makes false memories challenging to comprehend. Memory can be readily molded until the actual event becomes nothing more than a sketch of what is remembered. External influences, such as how people present information or ask questions, impact how an experience is recalled (Maswood & Rajaram, 2019). Using terms that connote specific details convinces the mind to remember something in one particular way.
The effect of emotional connotation in the list and lure words is a particular factor addressed in the second portion of our research. Inspirational words have a distractive effect over other words due to their different nature and ‘conceptual relatedness (Maswood & Rajaram, 2019). Emotionally distracting words can sabotage the memory encoding process, both in the list and in a DRM assignment.
Objectives
The current study has two objectives. The experiment’s goal was to see if DRM lists would have a false memory effect. It was designed to see to what extent participants would falsely claim to have seen the lure phrase at both the recall and recognition stages. The experiment’s other goal was to see how adding an emotionally distracting word to the DRM list affected the provided terms and the lure words during the recall and recognition stages.
Hypothesis
It was predicted that during recall and recognition tests, the DRM lists would result in a false memory effect. Additionally, it was projected that the emotionally disturbing term will increase identification and recall of the accurately delivered words while diminishing memory and credit of the lure words. The experiment will be conducted to determine whether it is true or false by researching this hypothesis. The following sections prove the hypothesis and constitute the rest of the research.
Design
The distractors used in this case constituted the none negatively valance distractors, dynamic distractors. Additionally, the absence of distractors was meant to control the experiment. Based on recordings, two types of recordings were taken, including DV1 and DV2. DV1 constituted the mean proportion of critical and last words recorded in the test record. On the other hand, DV2 also included previous and necessary terms recorded using test recognition. This experiment begins with a DRM list presentation, followed by the recall and recognition tests.
Participants
The research participants included 349 students in the psychology class, and their average age was 20.3 years. As mentioned by the professors, human training had to be conducted to prepare the subjects for conducting the experiments. In addition to human exercise, the participants were asked to offer informed consent, where everyone had to sign a written copy of the authorization. This consent entailed agreeing to participate in both the tutorial and the experiment.
Materials and Apparatus
This experiment was performed using the typical Dell computer monitors and CPUs. Each of these computers had the standard QWERTY keyboards and the ordinary mouse. The computers had preinstalled MATLAB program based on software, which allowed us to perform statistical analysis on the data collected during the experiment. Additionally, the computers had Psychotoolbox, which allowed the MATLAB program to compute images, movies, and MATLAB functions. This tool treated the computer as a display device to present the data. Other apparatus included a pen and a booklet that allowed us to solve math problems. The instructor, for 30 seconds, performed the timing.
Procedure
The experiment followed the following steps and procedures, each systematically outlined. Firstly, all the participants were given 18 lists, where 12 of the words given originated from the DRM lists. Based on these lists, and emotional distractor was included making the words 13. It is worth noting that every subject was given the same lists in a randomized order. Secondly, a math interference task was shown where the math problems were completed after 30 seconds following the issuing of the lists and before the recall test was given. Thirdly, a recall test was offered where every individual was given 20 seconds to write what they could recall. These two procedures mentioned were repeated 18 times before a recognition test which entailed choosing a No or Yes.
Results
Recall Test Results
Throughout the free call testing, the mean proportion of the list and lure words recalled was calculated. The mean ratios of the list of words remembered for the list included emotional diversionary tactics and the list that did not include the distractor. For the light that continued the dynamic distractor and the lit that did not have the emotional distractor, the mean proportion of non-presented lure words was recalled.
Plotting a mean % word lists graph against the distractor type yielded the findings. There is little variation in the percentage of the list of words identified as having the distractor type’s function. T (348) = 2.35, p>0.05. The proportions of the lure phrases alter significantly depending on the type of distractor. T (348) = 4.15, p0.05.
A fictitious recall of the lure lines that were never given is evident. The subjects remembered the lure words better than the list of phrases. Additionally, the emotional distractor did not affect recollection of the words in the list. There is no distinction between the no distractor and distractor options. Compared to the no distractor condition, the emotional distractor reduced the false recall of the lure words. Compared to no distractors, the dynamic distractor significantly reduces the faulty memory of the lure words. A comparison was made between predicting the mean of recognition for lure terms from lists including the emotional distractor and those that did not.
Recognition Test Results
The average proportion of the list and lure words recognized in recognition tests was determined. The balance of the mean of the recognition of word lists from the list that contains the emotional distractor and the list that lacks include the dynamic distractor. The following results represent a tabulated finding for the recognition test.
The following inferences can be made when a mean population against distractor type graph is drawn. The fraction of the list of words recognized as the function of the distractor type does not differ significantly. p>0.05, T (348) =1.91. The proportions of the lure phrases alter significantly depending on the type of distractor. T (348) = 3.85, p0.05. The next part goes into more depth about these findings.
Discussion
The findings of the recall test are in. There is little variation in the percentage of the list of words identified as having the distractor type’s function. T (348) = 2.35, p>0.05. As a function of the distractor kind, there is a significant change in the proportions of the lure words. p0.05, T (348) =4.15. It was hypothesized that the DRM lists would cause a false memory effect, which would be observed during recognition and recall tests. The psychologically distracting word was also predicted to boost recall and recognition of the real provided words while decreasing recall and recognition of the lure words. There is proof of false recollection of lure phrases that were never provided. The lure words were remembered more than the list of terms by the participants.
The application of the emotional distractor caused a reduction in recollection of the words on the list. There was no distinction between the no distractor and distractor conditions. When compared to when there was no emotional distractor, the emotional distractor reduced erroneous recall of the lure words. Compared to the no distractor condition, the emotional distractor significantly reduced the false recall of the lure words. This is because emotional words have a distracting effect on other words. Emotionally disturbing words, both in the list and lure words in a DRM task, might cause problems with memory encoding. The bait word and its ‘raw frequency,’ which is the number of times the lure word occurs in print (Houben et al. 2018). Increased presentation time of list words weakens the false recall of a lure word (Houben et al. 2018). According to studies, a forewarning about false recollections reduced false recall but not detection of lure words.
In the recognition test, there is no discernible difference in the percentage of the word list that is recognized based on the type of distractor. T (348) = 1.91, p>0.05. The proportions of the lure phrases alter significantly depending on the type of distractor. 0.05, T (348) =3.85, T (348) =3.85, T (348) =3.85, T (348) = There is evidence that the lure words that were never given were incorrectly recognized. It was hypothesized that the DRM lists would cause a false memory effect, which would be observed during recall and recognition tests. Additionally, it was projected that the emotionally disturbing term will increase recognition and memory of the actual given words while decreasing recognition and recall of the lure words. Participants were more likely to recognize the lure phrases than the list terms. The presence of the emotional distractor had no effect on word recognition. The effect of the distractor is the same as that of the no distractor. Compared to the no distractor condition, the emotional distractor reduced false recognition of the lure words.
Related to the no distractor condition, the emotional distractor significantly reduced false recognition of the lure phrases. This is due to the fact that emotive words can divert attention from other words. Memory encoding issues may arise from emotionally upsetting words in the list or luring words in a DRM job. More research is needed to determine whether DRM lists generate a false memory effect. The experiment’s other goal was to see how adding an emotionally distracting word to the DRM list affected the real provided words and the lure words during the recall and recognition stages. The bait word and its ‘raw frequency’ is the number of times the lure word occurs in print (Abadie & Camos, 2019). A longer presentation duration of list words weakens the false memory of a lure word (Maswood & Rajaram, 2019). Generally, a prior notice of false memory weakens the faulty memory of a lure word.
Conclusion
Finally, there is support for the incorrect recognition of lure words that were never offered. The lure words were identified by the participants more than the list terms. The emotional distractor was included, and it did not affect recognizing the list of words. The distractor and the no distractor have the same effect. Additionally, the proof of false memory of never-presented lure words can be found in the recall test. The lure words were remembered more than the list of terms by the participants. The application of the emotional distractor resulted in a decrease in recall of the words on the list. There was no distinction between the no distractor and distractor conditions. Compared to when there was no emotional distractor, the dynamic distractor reduced the erroneous recall of the lure words. Compared to the no distractor condition, the emotional distractor significantly reduced the false memory of the lure words.
References
Abadie, M., & Camos, V. (2019). False memory in the short and long term. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1312.
Houben, S. T., Otgaar, H., Roelofs, J., & Merckelbach, H. (2018). Lateral eye movements increase false memory rates. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(4), 610-616.
Kloft, L., Monds, L. A., Blokland, A., Ramaekers, J. G., & Otgaar, H. (2021). Hazy memories in the courtroom: a review of alcohol and other drug effects on false memory and suggestibility. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 124, 291-307.
Maswood, R., & Rajaram, S. (2019). Social transmission of false memory in small groups and large networks. Topics in cognitive science, 11(4), 687-709.
Murphy, G., Loftus, E., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J., & Greene, C. M. (2020). Fool me twice: How effective is debriefing in false memory studies? Memory, 28(7), 938-949.
Nichols, R. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). Who is susceptible to three false memory tasks? Memory, 27(7), 962-984.
Patihis, L., Frenda, S. J., & Loftus, E. F. (2018). False memory tasks do not reliably predict other false memories. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 140.