False memory using the Roediger and McDermott paradigm.

TITLE: False memory using the Roediger and McDermott paradigm.

INTRODUCTION:
● What is Memory? (types and models of memory- briefly – not more than
one paragraph).
● Memory malleability and how it is participant to distortion. (How Human
memory holds an amazing amount of information, yet it is not just a storage
device. Memory processes’ susceptible to distortion (see Schacter 2001). In
particular, external suggestions, like post-event information, like leading
questions (Loftus and Palmer 1974) and conversations with co-witnesses
(Wright, Self and Justice,2000), or even remembering complete, detailed
events that never happened (Loftus and Pickrell1 995).
● Reconstructive nature of memory. (combination of different traces to create
a new memory. A note on The 'misinformation effect' (see Davis and Loftus
2006;L oftus 2005)
● What are False memories? Evidence of false memories given by various
researchers. (Bartlett (1932/1997- The War of the Ghosts, Elizabeth Loftus
and colleagues (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). - eyewitness testimony).
● Deese, Roediger and McDermott task of creating false memory in lab(
Roediger & McDermott, 1995).
● Impact of modality of presentation on false memory (Smith and Hunt 1998)

PROBLEM
To study the effect of mode of presentation of material on inducement of false
memory
HYPOTHESIS
Alternative Hypothesis
The Verbal mode of presentation of material yields higher inducement of false
memory. That is, The mean recognition scores of false memory is higher for verbal
presentation than for visual presentation of word list.
Null Hypothesis
The Verbal mode of presentation of material does not yield higher inducement of
false memory. That is, The mean recognition scores of false memory is not higher
for verbal presentation; it is lower or equal to that for visual presentation of word
list.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF THE VARIABLES:
Independent Variable
Presentation list of words, varied at two levels Verbal and Visual.
Dependent Variable
Inducement of false memory, measured in terms of the mean recognition scores for
false memory for lure words not initially presented on the list
Control Variables
1. Exposure time of each word was 2 seconds
2. All the lists had the same number of words (12 words each)
3. The three lists were counterbalanced in presentation of 3 sets, such that one
third of the class followed set 1-the order of presentation being- list1, then 2
then 3, second third of the class followed set 2 - the order of presentation
being- list 2, then 3, then 1 and the last third of the class followed set 3 - the
order of presentation being,- list 3, then list 1 and then list 2 respectively.
4. An interval of 12 unfilled seconds was given between the three lists.
5. Recognition list was constructed in blocks; there were 7 items per block, and
each block corresponded to a studied list (2 studied words, 2 related words, 2
unrelated words, and the critical non studied lure). The order of the blocks
corresponded to the order in which lists had been studied. Each block of test
items always began with a studied word and ended with the critical lure; the
other items were arranged haphazardly in between.
6. Three recognition sheets were prepared as per the 3 sets of word lists, such
that the order of blocks on the recognition sheets were similar to the order
of lists presented.
METHOD:
Participants
Individual Data

Name Age Class Emotional

(Optional) State
Participant 1

Group Data

College Students: N=20 participants

Apparatus and Materials

1. Three lists from the materials listed in Deese's (1959) article (3 lists of
associatively related words)
2. Recognition sheet (The 21-item recognition test included 6 studied and 15
non studied items. There were three types of non- studied items, or lures: (a)
the 3 critical lure words, from which the lists were generated (e.g., chair),
(b) 6 words generally unrelated to any items on the three lists, and (c) 6
words weakly related to the lists (2 per list). One of the two studied words
that were tested occurred in the first position of the study list (and therefore
was the strongest associate to the critical item); the other occurred
somewhere in the first 6 positions of the study list).
3. Stopwatch/Metronome
4. Stationery
5. Screen
DESIGN
Random groups design with one independent variable having 2 levels. Different
participants are exposed to the two levels (one is presented material through verbal
means and the other through visual means.
PROCEDURE
All the required materials were checked and arranged by the E. The participant was
called inside the laboratory and made to sit comfortably facing the wooden screen.
A few general questions were asked in order to build rapport, and then the
following instructions were given.
Instructions for the first participant
“This is a simple experiment on memory process, I will read aloud a list of words,
one at a time, at the speed of one word per 2 seconds. Your task is to listen to each
word carefully as you will be tested for it later at the end of the experiment”.
“After I finish reading the first list, I will give you a small interval of a few seconds
and then read the second list. After I finish reading the second list, I will give you a
small interval of a few seconds again and then read the third list. This way I will
read aloud three lists of words, one by one. Before starting the words on each list, I
will specify the list number. “Have you understood? Do you have any doubts”?
Instructions for the second participant
“This is a simple experiment on the memory process; I will present to you some
cards that have a word typed on it. Each card will be presented one at a time at the
speed of one word per 2 seconds. Your task is to look at each word carefully as you
will be tested for it later at the end of the experiment. “After I finish showing the
first list, I will give you a small interval of a few seconds and then present the
second list of words. After I finish showing the second list, I will give you a small
interval of a few seconds again and then present the third list. This way I will show
you three lists of words, one by one. Before starting the words on each list, I will
specify the list number. “Have you understood? Do you have any doubts”?
The experimenter presents the list of words from the first list at the rate of one
word per two seconds, followed by words from list two and then words from list
three.
Once the E ensured that the P understood the instructions properly, the E started
the experiment by saying “Ready” followed by naming the list – “List – 1” and
then reading/visually showing on card the first word on that list, E continued
reading aloud/ presenting the words on the list at the speed of one word per 2
seconds. At the end of the first list, E gives a small unfilled break of 12 seconds.
After 12 seconds, the E says, “Ready”, and then names the second list as “List –
2”, then starts reading /visually showing on card(s), the second list, in the same
way as the first (at the rate of one word per 2 seconds) . At the end of the second
list, the same procedure is followed, a small gap of unfilled 12 seconds are allowed
to pass by, before E says “Ready” again, followed by naming the third list as “List
– 3”, and then reading aloud /visually showing on card(s), words on the list one by
one at the speed of one word per 2 seconds, till the list is completed.
Free recall test
"This part of the task involves a simple memory test. I will give you a sheet of
paper, Please write down all the words you can remember from the three lists you
heard/ seen in the last session on that sheet. Their order is not important. You can
write them as you remember them. You may begin from the last few words or
words from the first or the second list, as per your preference. Please write the
words vertically, one below the other. You have three minutes to recall all the
words you can. Do you have any questions?"
E answers any questions the participant may have. E sets the timer and instructs the
P to start recalling. After three minutes are over, the E stops the P and takes the
sheet away.
Recognition test
"This is a simple recognition task. I will give you a sheet of paper, on which many
words are printed. Some of the words are from the three lists of words you heard/
saw in the first part of the experiment, and there are many new words added to it.
Your task is to indicate whether each word is old (that is, on one of the lists you
heard/saw previously) or new. You will write “O” if you think the word is old and
“N” if you think the word is new. This is self-paced, and you can take your time
(but it generally does not take longer than three minutes), but try to respond as
accurately as you can. Begin when I say “Start”, and let me know when you are
done. Do you have any questions? ".
E answers any questions the participant may have. E starts the recognition test and
waits for the participant to finish.
Post-task Questions
1. Have you heard anything about this experiment before?
2. Do you have any comments about this experiment?
3. Did you find anything unusual about this experiment?
4. What do you think was the purpose of this experiment?
5. Do you remember seeing/ hearing all the words that you recalled /
recognized or you just know they were there?
6. Could you observe any pattern or theme in the words on the lists?
7. Did you feel confused about whether or not a word was presented to you
earlier while recognizing words?
DEBRIEFING
The purpose of this experiment was to study human memory to test its fallibility
and whether it is participant to false memories or not. In this experiment, the
term false memories is used to characterize the recall of events that never occurred
or in other words remembering words that were never shown in the list. The
purpose is also to Study the effect of mode of presentation of material on
inducement of false memory, that is to know whether visual mode of material
presentation or auditory mode of material presentation leads to more false memory.
This experiment had two participants, one was shown the words one by one and
the other heard the same words. The words that appeared in a list were closely
associated to another word that was included in the recognition sheet but which
was not actually seen / heard by the participant when the words were exposed
initially. Recognizing those unseen/ unheard words as being on the list would be
evidence of false memory. Sharing the scores obtained by the participant explain if
evidence of false memory was observable.
This experiment was first performed by Roediger and McDermott in which they
found that human memory was highly reconstructive in nature and therefore
participant to false memories. Work by Smith and Hunt shows that visually
presented material leads to lesser false memory scores than verbally presented
material. One explanation of why false memories are created for words not shown/
read is that when we see or hear a word, it causes semantic activation. According
to activation theories, words are linked to one another in a network, and the
activation of one lexical concept results in the spread of activation to surrounding
concepts (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Studying a list of semantically related items
will thus result in strong activation of an item (i.e., the critical lure- use the critical
lure that the P remembered/ recognized) associated to all list items. Consequently,
the critical lure may be falsely remembered due to the heightened activation.
Understanding that false memories can arise is essential, particularly in the clinical
and forensic context. Since many decisions and judgments that might impact
mental health and /or future life of people may be based on what people say they
remember from memory, production of false memories may compromise the
reliability of the reports and testimonies of patients, suspects or victims of crime.
Thus, it is possible for patients, suspects or victims of crime to report
information/events in a different way from reality, unintentionally distorting facts,
conditioning and compromising their veracity. Currently, the occurrence of false
memories is a phenomenon widely investigated in forensic psychology since the
majority of the judicial systems worldwide use eye-witness as a source for decision
making.

ANALYSIS OF DATA
Individual Data
1. Responses of participant from recall sheet were recorded in Table 1
2. Responses of participant from recognition sheet were recorded in Table 2
3. A bar graph was drawn to depict No. of false memory scores on visual
compared to verbal. (Figure 1)

Table 1: Comparison of Hit rate and False memory scores in recall task for
Verbal and Visual presentation of Words

Verbal presentation of list Visual presentation of list

Hit rate False Hit rate False
(words memory (words memory
correctly (recall of correctly (recall of
recalled) words not recalled) words not
present on present on
the list) the list)
List 1
List 2
List 3
Total
Mean

Table 2: Comparison of Hit rate and False memory scores in recognition task
for Verbal and Visual presentation of Words

Verbal presentation of list Visual presentation of list

Hit rate (max False memory Hit rate (max False memory
6) (max 3) 6) (max 3)
List 1
List 2
List 3
Total
 Mean

Group Data:
1. Totals of false memory scores obtained through recognition were tabulated
for 20 participants for both Verbal as well as visual mode of material
presentation and were presented in Table 2 and a calculation of one tailed
t-test was shown below the table.
2. A bar graph was drawn to depict the mean false memory scores for both
Verbal as well as visual mode of material presentation. (Figure 2)
Table 3: Comparative analysis of False memory scores for Verbal and Visual
presentation of Words of 20 participants and the calculation of t value

Participants False memory score for False memory score for

Verbal presentation of Visual presentation of
list list
1
2
3
.
.
.
20
Total
Mean

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Individual data
Comment on the Recalled words. Is there evidence of false memory observed?
On the basis of Table1 (from recognition sheet), comment on the number of words
falsely remembered by the P as having seen in the first part of the experiment.
Compare with hit rate and state the honesty with which the P had responded in the
experiment. (Dishonest if all or most words are marked as “old”, in order to get
100% hit rate.)
Compare the false memory scores of all the three lists and comment on the total
scores and means of verbal and visual false memory scores. State the mode of
presentation that yields higher false memory
Comment on the number of false memory words recalled. How many words were
correctly recalled? Comment on the critical lures recalled. Is there evidence of
false memory? Was the number of correctly recalled words for verbal same or
different from the correctly recalled words for visual? Were falsely recalled words
in verbal condition same or different from the visual condition? Then discuss
relevant theory or research. If contrary findings are observed, discuss
methodological issues or confounding factors relevant explaining the trend.
Which false memory scores are higher-Verbal or visual? Is the trend as expected?
Provide theory basis to support the results (Smith and Hunt 1998). If contrary
trend observed, discuss the confounding factors operated during the conduct.
Discuss whether the trends in the individual data were consistent with the Null
Hypothesis or not?
Any factors operating during the conduct affecting the results? Discuss whether
controls were in place or not? Did attitude and emotional state of participant
during the participation influence the results in any way?
Incorporate PTQs to explain the trends observed.
Provide relevant theory and research to augment the results obtained.
Group data
Is the mean false memory score for verbally presented words higher than the mean
false memory score for visually presented words?

Which inferential statistical technique would you use to analyse the group data and
why? Provide reasons.
Are the results statistically significant? Report t values with degree of freedom and
statistical significance. Report the results as per APA format.
Is the alternative hypothesis validated by the group data or not based on the
inferential statistics?
Provide relevant theoretical or research basis. If the group data is not as expected,
provide confounding factors or explain methodological issues (results may change
if rate of presentation of words is changed/ results may be affected if more lists are
included, the longer the list the better the false memory scores. Most importantly
we have no way of knowing for sure whether dual encoding operated or not. i.e.,
when verbally presented, the participant could have visualized the word too and
vice versa) of the experiment.
Evaluate the experiment on the basis of internal validity, external validity,
experimental realism, and mundane realism.
Give recent researches? Any suggestions for improvement?
CONCLUSION
The main trends in the Individual Data were/were not consistent with the relevant
past research and theories for false memory scores of visual and verbal
presentation of words.
The hypothesis that mean recognition scores of false memory after verbal
presentation of word list will be higher than the mean recognition scores of false
memory after visual presentation of word list, was/was not validated by the Group
Data, on the basis of the obtained t value and its significance.
REFERENCE
Roediger, H.L., & McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating false memories:
Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803- 814.
Roediger, H., Watson, J., McDermott, K. and Gallo, D., 2001. Factors that
determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 8(3), pp.385-407.
McDermott KB. The Persistence of False Memories in List Recall. J Mem
Lang. 1996;35(2):212–230. [Google Scholar]
Smith RE, Hunt RR. Presentation modality affects false memory. Psychon Bull
Rev. 1998;5(4):710–715. [Google Scholar]
Gallo DA, McDermott KB, Percer JM, Roediger HL., III Modality effects in false
recall and false recognition. J Exp Psychol: Learn Mem
Cogn. 2001;27(2):339–353. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/false-memory
APPENDIX
List 1:
TABLE, SIT, LEGS, SEAT, SOFT, DESK, ARM, SOFA, WOOD, CUSHION,
REST, STOOL.
Critical lure: Chair
List 2:
BED, REST, AWAKE, TIRED, DREAM, WAKE, NIGHT, BLANKET, DOZE,
SLUMBER, SNORE, PILLOW.
Critical lure: Sleep
List 3:
RIPE, CITRUS, VEGETABLE, JUICE, BANANA, ORANGE,
BASKET, BOWL, SALAD, PEAR, APPLE, CHERRY.
Critical lure: Fruit
SET 1 – List 1, 2 & 3
SET 2 – List 2, 3 & 1
SET 3 – List 3, 1 & 2

Recognition sheet – set 1

TABLE BED RIPE

TARGET ALARM CEMENT
FLOOR FIGHT SALAD
SAND DINNER BAKE
WOOD ROAD SEED
SLOUCH NIGHT TREE
CHAIR SLEEP FRUIT
Recognition sheet – set 2
BED RIPE TABLE
ALARM CEMENT TARGET
FIGHT SALAD FLOOR
DINNER BAKE SAND
ROAD SEED WOOD
NIGHT TREE SLOUCH
SLEEP FRUIT CHAIR
Recognition sheet – set 3
RIPE TABLE BED
CEMENT TARGET ALARM
SALAD FLOOR FIGHT
BAKE SAND DINNER
SEED WOOD ROAD
TREE SLOUCH NIGHT
FRUIT CHAIR SLEEP