Long-Term Memory II

PSYC2007 – Fall 2021

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 1

 Outline

• Processes involved in LTM

• False memories

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 2

 Processes involved in LTM
• After having learned about the basics about different
types of LTM, we will now learn about the processes
involved in LTM.
– Encoding refers to the process of registering information in
LTM.
– Retrieval refers to the process of accessing information in
LTM.
– Consolidation refers to the process of turning memories
from a fragile state to a more permanent state.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 3

 Generation effect
• Slamecka and Graf (1978) hypothesized that generation of
information would enhance encoding, and would result in
better recall.

• They used the paired-associate learning paradigm.

– Participants first learned a list of word pairs.
– During the test, participants were presented the first word of each pair,
and asked to recall the other word in the pair.

• In the generate condition, instead of learning an existing list of

word pairs, the first word and the initial letter of the second
word of a pair was presented. Participants were asked to
complete the second word, which was related to the first word
in different ways.
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 4
 Generation >> passive memorizing

ASS = associate
CAT = category
OPP = opposite
SYN = synonym
RHY = rhyme

Slamecka & Graf (1978)

• Performance was much better in the generate

condition than in the read condition.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 5

 Why should we have tests?
• Does practice testing result in better recall?
Testing Testing
group group

Take Take
recall test Delay recall test

Read Solve 5 minutes,

passage math 7 minutes 2 days, or
problems 1 week
7 minutes 2 minutes
Reread Take
passage Delay recall test

Rereading Rereading
group group

Roediger & Karpicke (2006)

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 6
 Testing effect—tests are good!

• The testing group performed better in the long delay

conditions.
Roediger & Karpicke (2006)
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 7
 Does generating errors help?
• Slamecka and Graf (1978) demonstrated the
generation effect.

• Roediger and Karpicke (2006) demonstrated the

testing effect.

Will it help or hurt if one makes mistakes

during the “generation” or the “testing” phase?

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 8

 Learning a foreign language?
• Potts, Davies and Shanks (2019) made their
participants believe that they were in a language
learning study.
– Participants were asked to learn pairs of foreign (Swahili)
words and their English translations.
– Potts et al. included three types of trials:
• Read—Read the word-translation pair for 15s.
• Generate—Generate the translation given only the foreign word for
10s. Read the correct pair for the next 5s.
• Modified read—Read the word-translation pair for 15s. After 2s into
the trial, respond to “What would you have guessed …?” for 10s.
– Why was it important to include the modified read trials?

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 9

 Generation of errors helped

• Even generating errors helped!

Potts, Davies & Shanks (2019)

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 10
 Loftus on false memories

https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 11
 How is memory retrieved?
• Braun, Ellis and Loftus (2002) asked:
Can suggestions alter childhood memory?

• This is based on the hypothesis that memory is

reconstructed in the process of retrieval.

• They studied how current information might influence

participants’ confidence on “past” events.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 12

 The Disney study
“Go back to your childhood …
and remember the characters
of your youth, Mickey, Goofy,
and Daffy Duck ... Mickey, the
character you’ve idolized on
TV, is only several feet away.
Your heart stops but that
doesn’t stop your hands from
sweating. You wipe them off
just before reaching up to grab
his hand.”

Braun, Ellis & Loftus (2002)

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 13
 The Disney study
• Participants were randomly assigned to the Disney
ad condition (N = 41) or the control ad condition (N =
32).

• Each participant completed a life-events inventory

(LEI) (confidence rating), which included the target
event – “Met and shook hands with a favorite TV
character at a theme resort”, at Week 1.

• Participants came back after a week, read the ad,

imagined experiencing the events mentioned in the
ad, and completed the LEI again.
Braun, Ellis & Loftus (2002)
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 14
 Implanted memory?
• Braun, Ellis and Loftus (2002) compared the
proportions of participants in the two conditions for
decrease, no change or increase in confidence
between the two weeks.

Braun, Ellis & Loftus (2002)

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 15
 False memory of an impossible event

• Is there anything wrong with this ad?

Braun, Ellis & Loftus (2002)

Braun-LaTour, LaTour, Pickrell & Loftus (2004)
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 16
 The Bugs Bunny effect

• Despite the impossibility of the ad, the ad still

influenced participants’ confidence ratings.
Braun, Ellis & Loftus (2002)
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 17
 Loftus on the Bugs Bunny effect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZlPzSeUDDw
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 18
 The debate still goes on …

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 19

 Responses to Brewin & Andrews

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 20

 Another review paper on FM

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 21

 Misinformation effect
• A person’s report on a previously experienced event
can be changed by misleading postevent information
(MPI).
– Retroactive interference — MPI interferes with the
information encoded in memory.
– Source monitoring error / source misattributions — The
source of the reconstructed (false) memory is
(mis)attributed to the actual event, instead of the postevent
information.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 22

 Source misattribution hypothesis
• The source misattribution hypothesis:
Misleading information coming from a source more
confusable to the original source results in more memory
errors.

• Lindsay (1990) tested this prediction in his study.

– Original source was a female narrator.
– Memory test was conducted two days later.
– More confusable (difficult) condition: MPI came from the
same female narrator on Day 1.
– Less confusable (easy) condition: MPI came from a male
narrator on Day 2 (same as the test day).

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 23

 Misleading suggestions

• 27% of responses in the difficult (low discriminability)

condition were given according to the MPI.
• Only 13% of responses in the easy (high discriminability)
condition were given according to the MPI.
Lindsay (1990)
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 24
 Strengthened misinformation effect
• When will people be more susceptible to the
misinformation effect?
– When people think that they may not have good memory of
the original event?

• Assefi and Garry (2003) did a alcohol placebo study

on misinformation effect.
– Participants watched a movie and were given a drink.
– Half of the participants were told that it was vodka tonic.
– Misleading postevent information about some critical items
was given afterwards.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 25

 Absolut® memory distortions

• Participants in the told-alcohol made more errors.

– There was a strong misinformation effect among the told-
alcohol participants.
Assefi & Garry (2003)
28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 26
 Summary
• Cognitive psychologists often study memory in terms
of the processes involved: encoding, retrieval and
consolidation.

• Factors affecting the strengths of encoding and

retrieval have been the focus of on-going research.

• Memory is hypothesized to be a reconstructive

process.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 27

 Sections from the textbook
• Chapter 7
– Encoding: Getting Information into Long-Term Memory
• Levels of Processing Theory
• Forming Visual Images
• Generating Information
• Retrieval Practice
– Effective Studying
– Retrieval: Getting Information Out of Memory
• Matching Conditions of Encoding and Retrieval
– Consolidation: Establishing Memories

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 28

 Sections from the textbook
• Chapter 8
– Memory for “Exceptional” Events
– The Constructive Nature of Memory
– The Misinformation Effect
– Creating Memories for Events in People’s Lives
– Why Do People Make Errors in Eyewitness Testimony?

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 29

 References
• Assefi, S. L., & Garry, M. (2003). Absolut® memory distortions: Alcohol
placebos influence the misinformation effect. Psychological Science, 14(1),
77-80.
• Braun, K. A., Ellis, R., & Loftus, E. F. (2002). Make my memory: How
advertising can change our memories of the past. Psychology & Marketing,
19(1), 1-23.
• Braun-LaTour, K. A., LaTour, M. S., Pickrell, J. E., & Loftus, E. F. (2004).
How and When Advertising Can Influence Memory for Consumer
Experience. Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 7-25.
• Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses'
ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(6), 1077-1083.
• Potts, R., Davies, G., & Shanks, D. R. (2019). The benefit of generating
errors during learning: What is the locus of the effect? Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(6), 1023-
1041.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 30

 References
• Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning:
Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science,
17(3), 249-255.
• Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a
phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and
Memory, 4(6), 592-604.

28/10/21 Long-Term Memory II 31