TY - JOUR
T1 - The strength-based mirror effect in subjective strength ratings
T2 - The evidence for differentiation can be produced without differentiation
AU - Starns, Jeffrey J.
AU - White, Corey N.
AU - Ratcliff, Roger
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded by AFOSR Grant FA9550-06-1-0055 and NIA Grant R01-AG17083.
PY - 2012/11
Y1 - 2012/11
N2 - Criss (Cognitive Psychology 59:297-319, 2009) reported that subjective ratings of memory strength showed a mirror effect pattern in which strengthening the studied words increased ratings for targets and decreased ratings for lures. She interpreted the effect on lure items as evidence for differentiation, a process whereby lures produce a poorer match to strong than to weak memory traces. However, she also noted that participants might use different mappings between memory evidence and levels of the rating scale when they expected strong versus weak targets; that is, the effect might be produced by decision processes rather than differentiation. We report two experiments designed to distinguish these accounts. Some participants studied pure lists of weak or strong items (presented once or five times, respectively), while others studied mixed lists of half weak and half strong items. The participants from both groups had pure-strength tests: Only strong or only weak items were tested, and the participants were informed of which it would be before the test. The results showed that strength ratings for lures were lower when strong versus weak targets were tested, regardless of whether the study list was pure or mixed. In the mixed-study condition, the effect was produced even after identical study lists, and thus the same degree of differentiation in the studied traces. Therefore, our results suggest that the strength-rating mirror effect is produced by changes in decision processes.
AB - Criss (Cognitive Psychology 59:297-319, 2009) reported that subjective ratings of memory strength showed a mirror effect pattern in which strengthening the studied words increased ratings for targets and decreased ratings for lures. She interpreted the effect on lure items as evidence for differentiation, a process whereby lures produce a poorer match to strong than to weak memory traces. However, she also noted that participants might use different mappings between memory evidence and levels of the rating scale when they expected strong versus weak targets; that is, the effect might be produced by decision processes rather than differentiation. We report two experiments designed to distinguish these accounts. Some participants studied pure lists of weak or strong items (presented once or five times, respectively), while others studied mixed lists of half weak and half strong items. The participants from both groups had pure-strength tests: Only strong or only weak items were tested, and the participants were informed of which it would be before the test. The results showed that strength ratings for lures were lower when strong versus weak targets were tested, regardless of whether the study list was pure or mixed. In the mixed-study condition, the effect was produced even after identical study lists, and thus the same degree of differentiation in the studied traces. Therefore, our results suggest that the strength-rating mirror effect is produced by changes in decision processes.
KW - Memory models
KW - Mirror effects
KW - Recognition
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870545529&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870545529&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3758/s13421-012-0225-1
DO - 10.3758/s13421-012-0225-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 22736423
AN - SCOPUS:84870545529
SN - 0090-502X
VL - 40
SP - 1189
EP - 1199
JO - Memory and Cognition
JF - Memory and Cognition
IS - 8
ER -