Developmental trends in children’s use of different monitoring processes to avoid false memories

The effect of feedback and recollection rejection instructions on the development of memory monitoring and accuracy

Recollection rejection (a form of memory monitoring) involves rejecting false details on the basis of remembering true details (recall to reject), thereby increasing memory accuracy. This study examined how recollection rejection instructions and feedback affect memory accuracy and false recognition in 5-year-olds, 6- and 7-year-olds, 8- and 9-year-olds, and adults. Participants (N = 336) completed three study-test phases. Instructions and item-level feedback were manipulated during the first two phases, with the third phase including a test containing no instructions or feedback to evaluate learning effects. As predicted, in the younger children, as compared with the older children and adults, we found reduced accuracy scores (hits to studied items minus false alarms to related lures), reduced recollection rejection to related lures, and increased false recognition scores. We also found that, in the third phase, prior feedback reduced false recognition scores, potentially by improving monitoring, and typical developmental differences in false recognition were eliminated. However, there were mixed findings of instructions and feedback, and in some conditions these interventions harmed memory. These findings provide initial evidence that combining instructions and feedback with repeated task practice may improve monitoring effectiveness, but additional work is needed on how these factors improve and sometimes harm performance in young children.

Feelings of Contrast at Test Reduce False Memory in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm

False memories in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm are explained in terms of the interplay between error-inflating and error-editing (e.g., monitoring) mechanisms. In this study, we focused on disqualifying monitoring, a decision process that helps to reject false memories through the recollection of collateral information (i.e., recall-to-reject strategies). Participants engage in recall-to-reject strategies using one or two metacognitive processes: (1) applying the logic of mutual exclusivity or (2) experiencing feelings of contrast between studied items and unstudied lures. We aimed to provide, for the first time in the DRM literature, evidence favorable to the existence of a recall-to-reject strategy based on the experience of feelings of contrast. One hundred and forty participants studied six-word DRM lists (e.g., spy, hell, fist, fight, abduction, mortal), simultaneously associated with three critical lures (e.g., WAR, BAD, FEAR). Lists differed in their ease to identify their critical lures (extremely low-BAS lists vs. high-BAS lists). At recognition test, participants saw either one or the three critical lures of the lists. Participants in the three-critical-lure condition were expected to increase their monitoring, as they would experience stronger feelings of contrast than the participants in the one-critical-lure condition. Results supported our hypothesis, showing lower false recognition in the three-critical-lure condition than in the one-critical-lure condition. Critically, in the three-critical-lure condition, participants reduced even more false memory when they could also resort to another monitoring strategy (i.e., identify-to-reject). These findings suggest that, in the DRM context, disqualifying monitoring could be guided by experiencing feelings of contrast between different types of words.