Are two heuristics better than one? The fluency and distinctiveness heuristics in recognition memory

Not enough familiarity for fluency: definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition

Five experiments were conducted to test whether encoding manipulations thought to encourage unitization would affect fluency attribution in associative recognition memory. Experiments 1a and 1b, which utilized a speeded recognition memory test, demonstrated that definitional encoding increased reliance on familiarity during the recognition memory test. Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3, however, replicated previous research that had shown that fluency is unlikely to be attributed as evidence of previous occurrence in associative recognition (Westerman, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27:723-732, 2001). The results put limits on the degree to which fluency can influence recognition memory judgments, even in cases of enhanced familiarity, and are consistent with previous work suggesting that participants have preexperimental expectations about fluency that are difficult to change (e.g., Miller, Lloyd, & Westerman, Journal of Memory and Language 58:1080-1094, 2008), as well as with work suggesting that fluency has less of an influence on recognition memory decisions that are conceptual in nature (Parks, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39:1280-1286, 2013).

Interplay of the production and picture superiority effects: a signal detection analysis

Three experiments explored the interaction between the production effect (greater memory for produced compared to non-produced study items) and the picture superiority effect (greater memory for pictures compared to words). Pictures and words were presented in a blocked (E1) or mixed (E2, E3) design, each accompanied by an instruction to silently name (non-produced condition) or quietly mouth (produced condition) the corresponding referent. Memory was then tested for all study items as well as an equal number of foil items using a speeded (E1, E2) or self-paced (E3) yes-no recognition task. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 all revealed a small but reliable production × stimulus interaction. Production was also found to result in a liberal shift in response bias that could result in the overestimation of the production effect when measured using hits instead of sensitivity. Together our findings suggest that the application of multiple distinctive processes at study produces an especially discriminative memory trace at test, more so than the summation of each process individually.