The Basic-level convergence effect in memory distortions, Pansky & Koriat, 2004

 

Introduction

Research has frequently replicated results showing how memory is lost more rapidly for specific details.  More general or abstract information is usually preserved after long delays whereas verbatim details are lost.  Subjects have a harder time discriminating between categorically related items than different category items, producing false recognition of items.  Oddly, there have also been findings showing that more specific information is gained over time.  It is argued that memory preferentially stores information at the basic level (BL), an intermediate level of abstractness and specificity.  This is the level at which objects are spontaneously categorized, and that maximizes within-category similarity while minimizing between-category similarity.  In this study, the researchers attempted to assess whether there was a bidirectional shift towards this intermediate level of abstractness of brief and long delays by use of recognition and recall testing for narrative stimuli.

 

Experiment 1

 

Methods

60 undergraduates from the University of Haifa were presented with a coherent short story containing 9 target items.  Each target item was presented at one of three hierarchical levels: superordinate (clothing), BL (pants), subordinate (jeans).  The story was the same for all S’s, though the target items were balanced at the three levels across the sample.  Incidental learning was used during presentation so the S’s did not know their memory was going to be tested.  30 subjects were given an immediate test, 30 returned 1 week later to complete the same test.  Testing involved two parts: a cued recall test where sentence stems were to be completed by verbatim memories or best guesses, and a recognition test where S’s had to select from multiple choices to fill in the blank for the missing target.  In the latter section, the choices for target were presented at each of the three hierarchical levels, and S’s reported their confidence level for their choice (33-100%).

 

Results

Two judges determined if cued recall fit target taxonomy, removing all responses that did not.  Immediate testing produced 88% valid responses while the delayed condition only produced 56%.  There was a significant interaction such that more items were recalled at the BL than at either superordinate or subordinate level.  The latter two cases did not significantly differ.  This held true for both immediate and delayed recall.  There was a trend for subjects to recall the targets at the same level as at which they were presented, but this trend was only present at immediate test.  There was a bidirectional and symmetrical effect where the majority of items were recalled at the BL than any other level.  At immediate testing, the recognition of BL items was not significantly different than for either superordinate or subordinate items.  At delay, however, recognition of BL items was significantly greater than for other hierarchical levels.  S’s chose BL items over the correct level items even when all choices were available to them.  Using a joint analysis ANOVA, a significant BLC was found that was more pronounced for recall than recognition and greater for delay than immediate testing.  Incorrect BL recognition of items presented at the superordinate level produced higher confidence ratings than those correctly recognized at this level.  The opposite trend was present for items presented at the subordinate level.

 


Experiment 2

In an effort to rule out guessing as a potential cause of BL response trends in Experiment 1, the researchers composed new sentences that were relatively context free that could be completed with a range of different taxonomies.  Finding a BLC in this condition was believed to show it as a memory phenomenon.

 

Method

The same stories as in Experiment 1 were used with 6 new target items added, and indications of context removed from all sentences.  30 subjects were in each of three conditions: immediate testing, delayed testing (24 hr), and control.  In the control condition, the subjects did not read any of the original stories and instead just filled in the target blanks with any words they wished to make the story coherent.  Testing involved a single cued-recall test where the S’s completed the blanks where targets were omitted.  In the first phase, S’s were discouraged from guessing by a point system punishing incorrect responses.  The second phase had S’s fill in all skipped questions.

 

Results

As in Experiment 1, judges omitted responses that did not belong to the target taxonomy.  68% of immediate testing responses were valid and 46% of delayed.  The control group had a 0.07 proportion of responses in the target taxonomy.  The previously observed BLC is extremely unlikely to have been caused by guessing based on this finding.  The overall BLC effect was present in both free-choice and forced-choice testing phases at a significant level in both immediate and delayed testing.  Verbatim accuracy was significantly higher for free report than forced report. 

 

Discussion

Fuzzy-trace theory argues that multiple levels of abstraction are processed simultaneously.  The researchers add to this idea that BL abstractions may tend to dominate and my decay more slowly over longer intervals, resulting in the BLC effect experimentally observed.  They also argue that the BLC effect could be due to a reconstructive process at retrieval where fragments of memories are reassembled and used to select a possible target candidate with BL aspects being prominent.  BLC could be due to nonmemorial factors as well, such as BL terms being shorter and more frequent, people’s tendencies to communicate only as much specific information as is necessary, measurement limitations in the current study, and the possibility that the upward and downward shifts that converge at BL may be two independent processes.  They encourage the exploration of these issues in future research.

 


 

University of Arkansas

Department of Psychology

Graduate Program in Experimental Psychology

Lampinen Lab

False Memory Reading Group

False Memory Reading Group Fall 2004