Title and recall results from Experiment 1.- Wanted to

Title & Authors: Creating False Memories: Remembering Words Not Presented in TextHenry L. Roediger III and Kathleen B. McDermottIntro: Main issue/Research Question: Probability of recall of words actually studied  Hypotheses to-be-tested: Whether, under the right conditions, false memories can be created to remember words that were originally not presented in text  For Each Experiment Reported: Purpose Experiment 1:-          replicate Deese’s observations of false recall.Experiment 2:-          They wanted to extend while replicating the recognition and recall results from Experiment 1.-          Wanted to examine the effect of recall on the subsequent recognition test-          determine the false-alarm rates for critical unpresented items when the relevant list had not been presented previously-          Obtain subjects judgements about their experience while recognizing unpresented itemsMethod:Experiment 1: Course requirement for students regularly meeting of the class. Six lists were created from the materials listen in Deese’s article, only using the ones that produced the highest intrusion rates: chair, mountain, needle, rough, sleep, and sweet. For all critical words, they construct the second list of words by using the first 12 associates listed in Russel and Jenkins word association norms. Course requirement for students in one hour sessions. They developed 24 lists from Russells and Jenkins norms in a manner similar to that used for Experiment 1. Also, they were prompted to make remember-know judgements immediately after judging the item to be old, before they considered the next test item. The recognition test was composed of 96 items, half being ones that had been studied and half that had not. Results (main findings; no stats):Recalled the unpresented word on 55% of the listsHigher than Experiment 1May have been due to longer lists, to their slightly different constructionFalse-recall effect was robust and seems even stronger of an effect under conditions of Experiment 2Recall for studied words in the middle of the list; this difference was significant Just as likely to remember the false memory since the error rates are so high General Discussion:Main conclusionsThe paradigm they created from Deese’s work produced high levels of recall This paradigm also created high levels of false recognition for the critical items; the rate of false recognition approached the hit rateThe false recognition responses were frequently made with high confidence or were frequently accompanied by remember judgementsThe act of recall increased both accurate recognition of studied items and false recognition of the critical non studied items Your Critique Did the experiments answer the research question? Yes, I believe the results and the article itself answered all questions I had. Possibly Serial Position but I googled it. What questions were not answered? Not anyWhat is the next experiment that should follow? More research into false memory as a whole and why this occurs, possibly how to avoid it as well.Other questions? None really, I took Memory and Cognition with Keith and did his final touching a lot on false memory so I didn’t have many questions. Mostly of if there were any other explanations for their results and if they considered any and that was answered, I felt.              Title: Remembering words not presented in lists: Can we avoid creating false memories?Authors: David A. Gallo, Meredith J. Roberts, and John G. SeamonMain Issue/Research Question: Is it possible to avoid creating false memoriesHypothesis to-be-tested: “That the subjects in the uninformed condition produce a strong false recognition effect while subjects in the cautious and forewarned groups provide novel test conditions, they should produce either a comparable or diminished effect”Purpose, Method, Results of all Experiment’sMain Conclusions in General DiscussionWhen subjects were uninformed about the memory illusion, they demonstrated a strong false recognition effectWhen subjects were hinted to be cautious about false alarms to all words they demonstrated a large false recognition effect, their hit rate for studied words while their false alarm rate for critical lures was comparable. However, instructions to be cautious decreased the likelihood that falsely recognized critical lures would be remembered from study.When subjects were forewarned about the memory illusion they demonstrated a diminished false recognition effect.A post experiment questionnaire indicated that the majority of the subjects in the uninformed and cautious group used elaborative rehearsal to try to remember the study words, whereas many subjects in the forewarned group tried to determine the critical luresThe effects of forewarning on false recognition were shown to be reliable by the results of an in-class demonstration Results: My Critique:Did the experiments answer the research question? Yes, all of my questions were answered by the studyWhat questions not answered? NoneNext experiment? Possibly trying to isolate the ability to have study tequniqques to remember or think about the word cuesOther questions? None