Smith, R. E., Lozito, J. P., & Bayen, U. J. (2005) Adult age
differences in distinctive processing: The modality effect on false recall. Psychology
and Aging, 20, 486 - 492.
The two studies presented in this article investigated
age differences in distinctive processing using the modality (auditory, visual)
of presentation of DRM lists. The focus of the research was to test the
distinctive processing theory explanation of the modality effect. The modality
effect in the DRM paradigm is the finding that when recall is written,
presenting the DRM lists in written format, relative to auditory format,
produces a reduction in false recall of the critical lures.
The distinctive processing theory explains the modality
effect in the following manner. In a list of similar items, an item which is
distinctive is processed differently than any of the other items, or than the
same item presented in a heterogeneous list of items. By way of example, a
black ant in a swarm of red ants is perceived more readily, and processed
differently than the same ant in a swarm of other insects which differ in many
different attributes, e.g., size, shape, color.
This thinking is applied to the DRM lists in the
following manner. If study words are presented, and therefor processed
visually, the internally generated critical lure should be distinctive because it is “heard” in ones head. However,
when the lists are presented auditorially, the critical lure is produced with
processes similar to the processing of the list items. Thus, when tested with
written recall subjects who were presented the lists visually will falsely
recall fewer critical lures than those who were presented the lists
auditorially.
This same logic was extended to predictions concerning
comparisons between younger and elderly adults. The argument is that elderly
adults engage in less distinctive processing than do younger adults, and if the
modality effect is due to differences in distinctive processing, then one would
expect a reduction in the size of the modality effect for elderly relative to
younger adults.
The authors presented two experiments using essentially
the same methodology and lists. The details for both experiments are presented
below.
|
|
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
||
|
|
Younger |
Older |
|
Older |
|
Mean Age (yrs.) |
20.4 |
70.2 |
18.5 |
72.6 |
|
n |
40 |
32 |
34 |
31 |
|
Education (yrs.) |
13.4 |
15.2 |
12.7 |
16.6 |
|
Vocabulary (36 Max) Vocabulary (36 max)VVVov |
14.2 |
22.5 |
15.5 |
23.5 |
Subjects in both experiments studied 12 DRM lists in the
same order, with the words in each list presented in descending order of
associative value. Mode of presentation was manipulated between subjects, so
that half of the subjects in each age group were presented the lists visually,
and for half they were presented auditorially. Auditory presentation occurred
over headphones, and for visual lists the words were presented on the computer
screen. In all presentations, words were presented for 1.5 s per word. In the
Experiment 1 the lists were blocked, i.e. all 12 items related to one critical
lure were presented before the items related to another critical lure occurred,
but subjects studied all 72 words before being asked to recall any words.
Because veridical recall was very low in Experiment 1, in Experiment 2 subjects
were asked to recall after each list.
In both experiments older adults did not show a modality
effect in the false recall. That is, younger adults falsely recalled fewer
critical lures when the lists were presented visually than when presented
auditorially. This effect was not observed with the elderly adults.
Important Legal Disclaimer: The preceding are articles we read
together in the Lampinen Lab Spring 2006 false memory reading group. By
clicking on the button next to the article you can see the summary of that
article. The summary was prepared by the student presenting that article and it
is of course the case that the views expressed in the summary do not
necessarily represent the views of the reading group as a whole, Dr. Lampinen,
the Lampinen Lab, Hugo's, the University of Arkansas, the Razorback Football or
Basketball teams (although we're not sure about cross country), people living
down the street from us, Bob Dylan, Jack Fate, our extended families, or anyone
else for that matter except for the student who wrote the summary (and they
don't necessarily believe what they wrote either).