False memory formation in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm

Lab Report for False Memory Zaps Experiment

The experiment was designed to investigate the ability of participants to create false memories of words that were related to the words they heard in a list. The aim of the experiment was to study and examine how reliable human memory is. In addition, we wanted to see how the brain reacts to different stimuli submitted to it. Memories do not exist in isolation. Constantly, they are disrupted by the mechanism of interference. In this vein, our lab results were modeled after J. Deese's 1959 study and the Roedinger and McDermott studies. The results were as follows and are reflected in the results table:

Average recognition rates for: In list = 83.3%

C. Not in list related = 50%

Not in list unrelated = 1.7%

As in the Deese study, the Roedinger and McDermott (DRM) paradigm showed that the act of recall enhanced later remembering of both the studied and nonstudied material. The results show that perceived memory for people is illusory and the events never actually happened. Our hypothesis is that the DRM paradigm is valid and our results were over the amounts in the original studies for encoding and mnemonic manipulation

Introduction

In cognitive psychology, the Deese -- Roediger -- McDermott paradigm (DRM paradigm) has become synonymous with memory illusion. In 1959, James Deese provided a results paradigm that was similarly replicated with different terminology by Henry L. Roediger III and Kathleen B. McDermott in 1995. Unfortunately, for Deese, his 1959 results did not elicit academic interest and support, hence the 1995 replay. Both studies debuted in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. In addition, this study will review relevant and related literature in a collaborative report by Jason M. Watson, David A. Balota and Henry L. Roediger III published in 2003 and another article by Kerri A. Goodwin, Christian A. Meissner and K. Anders Ericsson in 2001. Both of these articles further explored the DRM paradigm further, especially with regard to the encoding of memories via semantic and mnemonic devices delivered via the manipulation of word lists.

The 2003 article explored assessed false memories for critical word items (say, dog). These were followed up by the presentation of related semantic associates (e.g., hound, puppy) by phonological associates (e.g., log, dot) and/or by hybrid lists of semantic and phonological associates (e.g., hound, dot). The results of the 2003 experiments indicated clearly that there were exaggerated effects convergence occurred from both the conceptual and perceptual processing domains. Also shown to be prevalent was the influence of semantic and phonological processing networks that was dissociated in episodic memory performance. These included veridical and false recall, veridical as well as false recognition and "remember -- know" metamemory judgments/associations. Combined the findings implied that the individuals are were susceptible to false memories a convergence occurs of relatively independent dimensions of stimuli (meaning and pronunciation) on unpresented events. Certainly, recall was not total and was relative given verbal cues that could be manipulated if necessary to produce an intended false memory (Watson, Balota, & Roediger III, 2003, pp. 95 and 118).

In the 2001 experiment, false recall likelihood in the Deese -- Roediger -- McDermott (DRM) paradigm was shown to be dependent upon encoding contexts in the two experiments. When the fillers were preselected in order to decrease the likelihood of encoding the central lure's semantic features, false recall memories were almost completely eliminated when the same words were presented and rearranged in different presentation orders, levels of false recall. In essence, earlier DRM studies were replicated in effects as well as data. The further role of the encoding processes in the DRM paradigm were explored further via the introduction of additional participants who completing the experiment while thinking out loud. During the encoding of the word lists the experiment participants were made to verbalize semantic elaborations of the critical lure while studying their word lists. Path analysis procedures demonstrated that the participants' verbalization of the critical lures during the encoding process predicted their own levels of false recall of words in the lists. In short, encoding could be manipulated (deliberately even) to "enhance" and to produce false memories in a regular pattern (Goodwin, Meissner, & Ericsson, 2001, p. 806)

Discussion

While our study clearly reflects the body of academic literature, there are clearly limitations of the study and its effects to note. Because of the necessary structure of the experiment, it is still in question whether or not the results would play up in a normal situation. In addition, it does not take into account individuals with unusual or more limited abilities. Certainly, training to deal with word association could "cook" the data inadvertently if individuals selected for the experiment had above average memory. These individuals have to be eliminated from the experimental pool or statistically factored for. Also, individuals with below average association need to be accounted for. Clearly, sophisticated use of statistical averaging over large experimental populations is necessary to fully explore the experiment's full implications

Implications and Applications of the Findings Explored and Future Research Directions:

Truly, the implications of the DRM paradigm seem to be far-reaching. Memories are often constructs of what people think they should have experienced or should have recalled instead of what was actually experienced. Cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists have used the DRM paradigm this illusion as a basic tool to investigate how the brain creates false memories. However, without more statistical averaging and better selection of experimental candidates to come up with an "average" experimental population, it is regrettable to acknowledge that more conclusive results will not be available. This is not to acknowledge the value of the tool to date. Much has been learned regarding phenomenon of false memories, especially with regard to mistaken identity and similar applications. Unfortunately, we must let the data lead to the logical conclusions and refine the experimental method further to fully exploit the demonstrated the already demonstrated and proven potential of the DRM paradigm in action. As Henry L. Roediger III and Kathleen B. McDermott in had to elaborate upon and expand upon James Deese's 1959 experimental results in 1995, so must researchers not follow the same path to further expand and elaborate upon the results. Since the "genie is now out of the bottle" so to speak, it will additionally be necessary to ponder moral considerations so that this powerful tool can not be manipulated by unscrupulous individuals or governments as a tool of repression, propaganda and thought control in an Orwellian manner.