Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Elaborative processing and conjunction errors in recognition memory.

Jason Arndt1, Todd C Jones

  • 1Department of Psychology, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont, USA. jarndt@middlebury.edu

Memory & Cognition
|July 17, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Is "memory-for-when" universal? Group and individual variability in temporal position memory for words, faces, and classrooms.

Memory (Hove, England)·2024
Same author

Questioning the Role of Forward Associative Strength in False Memories: Evidence From Deese-Roediger-McDermott Lists With Three Critical Lures.

Frontiers in psychology·2021
Same author

The effect of language proficiency and associative strength on false memory.

Psychological research·2021
Same author

Sample Size Determination for Evaluation of Time Domain Heart Rate Variability Indices in Canine Lameness.

Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association·2018
Same author

Context retrieval and description benefits for recognition of unfamiliar faces.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2018
Same author

The role of backward associative strength in false recognition of DRM lists with multiple critical words.

Psicothema·2017
Same journal

Limited protective effects of multilingualism against age-related cognitive decline.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Validation of illustrated texts: Can pictures raise awareness of inconsistencies?

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

4I remember (and forget) your happy smiling face: Directed forgetting of emotionally expressive faces of in-group and out-group members.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Identity in the spotlight: Matching faces without overlapping features.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Test delay and change awareness moderate retroactive and proactive memory effects.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

The Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion in short-term memory: Opposite effects of retention interval on true and false recognition.

Memory & cognition·2026
See all related articles

Elaborative encoding strategies influence recognition memory errors. Processing word parts increases familiarity, leading to more conjunction lure errors, supporting dual-process memory theories.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience

Background:

  • Recognition memory is crucial for daily functioning.
  • Conjunction lure errors occur when similar but unstudied items are mistakenly identified as old.
  • Understanding encoding processes is key to explaining memory errors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how elaborative processing at encoding affects conjunction lure errors in recognition memory.
  • To examine the impact of encoding compound words as wholes versus constituents on memory errors.

Main Methods:

  • Four experiments were conducted using compound words.
  • Participants generated cues for words either as wholes or as separate entities.
  • Recognition tests included exact words and recombined conjunction lures.
  • Participants made old-new judgments and reported reasons for rejection.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Both encoding methods increased recall-to-reject processing and conjunction lure familiarity.
  • Generating compound words as wholes did not affect error rates.
  • Processing individual constituents increased familiarity more than whole-word generation, leading to more errors.

Conclusions:

  • Familiarity and recollection-based monitoring influence conjunction lure errors.
  • Encoding strategies impact memory error rates.
  • Findings support dual-process theories of recognition memory.