{"title":"Is \"remember\"-recognition faster than \"know\"-recognition an experimental artefact? Revealing properties of recollection and familiarity.","authors":"Jerwen Jou, Mark Hwang","doi":"10.1037/cep0000379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In published studies using the remember/know judgement paradigm, the remember-based old/new responses (supposed to be slow and effortful) are on average faster than the know-based responses (supposed to be fast and automatic), contrary to the dual-process theories' view. One widely believed cause of this finding is that it is an experimental artefact, meaning participants are unknowingly influenced by the instruction to first consider the remember before the know alternative. In Experiment 1, we hinted to participants to first consider the know experience. This did not reverse the order of the two response times (RT). In Experiment 2, we explicitly told them to first consider the familiarity experience. Additionally, we used a decision criterion favouring making quick familiarity responses. These measures significantly lowered the RT and increased the proportion of familiarity-based responses. However, they did not change the RT of the recollection-based responses and did not reverse the relative order of the two RTs. Based on this finding and participants' inability to inhibit the retrieval of contextual details, we concluded that the paradoxical RT results are probably not an experimental artefact and that retrieval of detailed information in recollective recognition might be automatic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51529,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000379","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In published studies using the remember/know judgement paradigm, the remember-based old/new responses (supposed to be slow and effortful) are on average faster than the know-based responses (supposed to be fast and automatic), contrary to the dual-process theories' view. One widely believed cause of this finding is that it is an experimental artefact, meaning participants are unknowingly influenced by the instruction to first consider the remember before the know alternative. In Experiment 1, we hinted to participants to first consider the know experience. This did not reverse the order of the two response times (RT). In Experiment 2, we explicitly told them to first consider the familiarity experience. Additionally, we used a decision criterion favouring making quick familiarity responses. These measures significantly lowered the RT and increased the proportion of familiarity-based responses. However, they did not change the RT of the recollection-based responses and did not reverse the relative order of the two RTs. Based on this finding and participants' inability to inhibit the retrieval of contextual details, we concluded that the paradoxical RT results are probably not an experimental artefact and that retrieval of detailed information in recollective recognition might be automatic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology publishes original research papers that advance understanding of the field of experimental psychology, broadly considered. This includes, but is not restricted to, cognition, perception, motor performance, attention, memory, learning, language, decision making, development, comparative psychology, and neuroscience. The journal publishes - papers reporting empirical results that advance knowledge in a particular research area; - papers describing theoretical, methodological, or conceptual advances that are relevant to the interpretation of empirical evidence in the field; - brief reports (less than 2,500 words for the main text) that describe new results or analyses with clear theoretical or methodological import.