Comparing decay rates for accurate and false memories in the DRM paradigm

Jorie Colbert-Getz, Dawn M. McBride

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although previous studies have consistently reported different forgetting rates for true and false memory when tested with recall, studies comparing the rates of decay for true and false recognition have reported inconsistent results. The present study attempted to clarify this inconsistency by comparing forgetting rates for true and false recognition in addition to addressing methodological differences among the previous studies. Recognition of list items and critical lures was assessed at six delays (2, 5,10, 15, and 20 min, and 2 days). A comparison of power function slopes across item type provided evidence of slope differences such that false recognition decayed more quickly than true recognition, which is inconsistent with predictions from activation/source- monitoring and fuzzy trace theories.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1600-1609
Number of pages10
JournalMemory and Cognition
Volume35
Issue number7
StatePublished - Oct 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

False Memory
Decay
DRM Paradigm
False Recognition
Recognition (Psychology)
Forgetting
Fuzzy-trace Theory
Prediction
Source Monitoring
Activation
Inconsistency

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Comparing decay rates for accurate and false memories in the DRM paradigm. / Colbert-Getz, Jorie; McBride, Dawn M.

In: Memory and Cognition, Vol. 35, No. 7, 10.2007, p. 1600-1609.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{17ca37135bf548c290185a483d3874de,
title = "Comparing decay rates for accurate and false memories in the DRM paradigm",
abstract = "Although previous studies have consistently reported different forgetting rates for true and false memory when tested with recall, studies comparing the rates of decay for true and false recognition have reported inconsistent results. The present study attempted to clarify this inconsistency by comparing forgetting rates for true and false recognition in addition to addressing methodological differences among the previous studies. Recognition of list items and critical lures was assessed at six delays (2, 5,10, 15, and 20 min, and 2 days). A comparison of power function slopes across item type provided evidence of slope differences such that false recognition decayed more quickly than true recognition, which is inconsistent with predictions from activation/source- monitoring and fuzzy trace theories.",
author = "Jorie Colbert-Getz and McBride, {Dawn M.}",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "1600--1609",
journal = "Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0090-502X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing decay rates for accurate and false memories in the DRM paradigm

AU - Colbert-Getz, Jorie

AU - McBride, Dawn M.

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - Although previous studies have consistently reported different forgetting rates for true and false memory when tested with recall, studies comparing the rates of decay for true and false recognition have reported inconsistent results. The present study attempted to clarify this inconsistency by comparing forgetting rates for true and false recognition in addition to addressing methodological differences among the previous studies. Recognition of list items and critical lures was assessed at six delays (2, 5,10, 15, and 20 min, and 2 days). A comparison of power function slopes across item type provided evidence of slope differences such that false recognition decayed more quickly than true recognition, which is inconsistent with predictions from activation/source- monitoring and fuzzy trace theories.

AB - Although previous studies have consistently reported different forgetting rates for true and false memory when tested with recall, studies comparing the rates of decay for true and false recognition have reported inconsistent results. The present study attempted to clarify this inconsistency by comparing forgetting rates for true and false recognition in addition to addressing methodological differences among the previous studies. Recognition of list items and critical lures was assessed at six delays (2, 5,10, 15, and 20 min, and 2 days). A comparison of power function slopes across item type provided evidence of slope differences such that false recognition decayed more quickly than true recognition, which is inconsistent with predictions from activation/source- monitoring and fuzzy trace theories.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36148959261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=36148959261&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 1600

EP - 1609

JO - Memory and Cognition

JF - Memory and Cognition

SN - 0090-502X

IS - 7

ER -