Leboe and Whittlesea believe that recollection occurs with the same underlying process as familiarity. Recollection occurs from familiarity and includes more cognitive processes by evaluating the fluency of processing items such as clarity and detail and also decides how well items fit into a mental model of reconstruction.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1a: Examines how the relationship between the context word and the studied word (second word) affected item recognition without prior experience. Participants study words that are either related (Lion-Tiger) or non related (Apple-Window). On the test all the context words were old and some of the probe words were old and new. The new probe words were in the opposite relation of the studied word pairs. (Lion-Tiger replaced by Lion-Honey). Old studied words were presented in the same context as studied. Participants were asked to determine whether or not the word was new without regard to the context it was first presented in. The latency time was measured.

Experiment 1b: Participants had to determine which study words were presented in new and old context instead of whether or not a word was new. The training session was the same as Exp. 1a. On the test all of the studied words were old but some of the context words were new and presented in opposite relation as was studied. Participants were shown the context word, and then shown the studied word. Participants were told to decide if the second word (studied word) had been presented in the same context as when studied. The latency time was recorded.

Experiment 1c: In Exp. 1b, participants were shown the context word first at test before they were presented with the study item which caused participants to experience fluency of processing. Exp. 1c removed this possibility. For the study words Leboe et.al used only 100 pairs of associates to be studied. ½ of the word pairs were associated on study, and the other half were randomly paired to make unrelated pairs. On the test, participants saw all old words and no new words. ½ of the related and unrelated pairs were presented in the same way they were studied. The other ½ were re-paired so the studied relatedness was opposite on the test. Participants were asked to decide which study items were presented in the same context as training and to say when the pairing had changed, without stating if the context word was the same as the one in the study session.

Results:

Experiment 1a: On the test, participants judged words as old more frequently and at a quicker pace when the words were presented in the same semantic relation (Lion-Tiger). This wasn’t due to the context serving as superior retrieval cues because when new items were presented in the same semantic relation as the context word, participants also stated that the new word was old.

Experiment 1b: Participants were quicker at naming a test item preceded by a related context word than when the test items weren’t presented with a same related context word. They also were more likely to state that the context word was paired with the study word when the two were semantically related. This was the same with new context words. This illustrates that participants make context judgments of an item just as they do about the item itself.

Experiment 1c: Related pairings were considered old more than unrelated pairs.

The relationship of the context word and studied word had an effect on how often participants judged study items old. People use the fluency of items to make recognition judgments for contexts presented at study just like they do when they experience familiarity for test items

Experiment 2 Inferential Recall:

2a: Used words that are associated with interrogation (questions: Sleepy? Finished?), exclamation (Help! Scary!), and also neutral words (Window, Filter). Participants were shown these types of words and asked to place the best punctuation after the word (either a question mark or exclamation mark after). Used as a validation check.

2B: Subjects studied exclamatory, interrogation, and neutral words with natural (Tired???), and unnatural punctuation (Sleepy!!!). Some of the punctuation fit the word, and some was an unnatural punctuation (Window???). On the test participants saw all old items and were asked to fill in the punctuation that was previously studied.

2c: Same as 2b, except new items were included on the test from each of the three categories (neutral, exclamatory, interrogative). Subjects were told to recall context of items when studied and put the correct punctuation. They also rated their confidence. Subjects not told there were new items.

Results: 2a: Participants generally agreed with the exclamatory and interrogative punctuation as the experimenters. There was less agreement on the neutral words, but mostly judged neutral. There was a slight bias to call more words exclamatory.

2B: Subjects did better than chance at correctly placing the punctuation on biased words. Participants a little better at correctly recalling the punctuation for exclamation marks then question marks, illustrating a general bias for exclamatory words. Confidence for neutral words was low. For consistent and inconsistent contexts, confidence was equally high, even though participants were below chance when recalling contexts of inconsistent items.

2C: Participants reported lower confidence when presented with new items that had not been studied but confidence was higher for new words presented in biased contexts.

Experiment 2 shows that recollection takes an evaluative process that uses source attribution checking to make sure the source is plausible, but this still allows for error. Participants were more confident in false recollection when new words were presented in a natural context and less confident for new material of neutral items because of the greater fluency of processing information.

Experiment 3: Looks at how biased processing during test result in biased remembering from differences in training experiences. Participants shown related words (Lion-Tiger), unrelated words (Summer – Table), or no distinctive contexts (stimuli presented with XXXX). On the test, participants are given the related, unrelated, nondistinctive word, and asked to recall the context. (__________-Winter). Leboe expected that accuracy and confidence wouldn’t be associated because the ability to easily recall a context can be unambiguously associated with a source in the past.

Method: Used 100 highly associated word pairs and 100 unrelated words from Exp. 1. 25 words were presented unchanged from study. 25 were made into unrelated pairs by replacing first word with randomly chosen word from unrelated list (Fork-Tiger). 25 more words were used and they replaced the context word with XXXX. Related, unrelated, and XXXX was on the left at study. Participants told to pay close attn. to words on right. At test, the study word was shown and the context word deleted (_________-Winter). Subjects were asked to recall the word and report confidence for their answer. If subjects couldn’t recall the word, they were told they could leave the line blank and not report confidence.

Results: Recalling related contexts was more common, but least accurate.

Correct recall of related contexts had a moderate confidence than inaccurate recall.

Recall of unrelated contexts was least common, but highest confidence when correct.

Recollection of XXXX was moderately common and had lowest confidence when correct.

Experiment 4: Contextual Control of Recollection

Familiarity is controlled by context of stimuli. Experiment 4 tests how dependent recall is on circumstances on the test to determine if the process of recollection and familiarity are the same.

Methods: Participants are shown pairs of words that rhyme that are semantically related.

There are three conditions participants are in.

Inclusion condition – Participants used contextual reinstatement to call items old. If the word on the test was presented with the same context as study, they were more likely to be identified as old compared to new contexts at test.

On both exclusion tests, participants generally did well at correctly claiming old items old, but context did affect their recognition. When asked to report items presented only in the rhyme condition at study, participants did better if the items were presented in the same context as at the test (rhyming context), and the same is true for semantically related contexts. Overall, changing text context affected participant’s ability to reject old items to be excluded.

General Discussion

These experiments showed how recall and familiarity rely on common processes. Recollection can be correct at recognizing stimuli in the same way familiarity can be correct. If information is processed fluently and coherently, upon recall this fluency can lead to mistakes in recollection. Recall can be more successful if the context in which an act of recall is performed is the same, much in the way familiarity can be successful in correct recognition.