Is "remember"-recognition faster than "know"-recognition an experimental artefact? Revealing properties of recollection and familiarity.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Jerwen Jou, Mark Hwang
{"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).

“记住”-识别比“知道”-识别快是一个实验人工制品吗?揭示回忆和熟悉的特性。
在使用记忆/知道判断范式的已发表研究中,基于记忆的旧/新反应(被认为是缓慢和费力的)平均比基于知识的反应(被认为是快速和自动的)快,这与双过程理论的观点相反。人们普遍认为,这一发现的一个原因是,这是一个实验人工制品,这意味着参与者在不知情的情况下,受到了在选择已知选项之前先考虑记忆的指示的影响。在实验1中,我们提示被试先考虑已知的经验。这并没有颠倒两个响应时间(RT)的顺序。在实验2中,我们明确地告诉他们首先考虑熟悉体验。此外,我们使用了一个有利于快速做出熟悉反应的决策标准。这些措施显著降低了RT,并增加了基于熟悉度的反应的比例。然而,他们没有改变基于回忆的反应的RT,也没有颠倒两个RT的相对顺序。基于这一发现和参与者无法抑制上下文细节的检索,我们得出结论,矛盾的RT结果可能不是实验人工产物,回忆识别中详细信息的检索可能是自动的。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
40
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信