The effects of divided attention at study and test on false recognition: A comparison of DRM and categorized lists

Knott, Lauren M.; Dewhurst, Stephen A. · 2007 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03192928

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the effects of divided attention (DA) during encoding and retrieval on false recognition, specifically comparing Deese/Roediger–McDermott (DRM) lists and categorized lists. The research addresses conflicting claims regarding the locus of false memories: Smith et al. (2002) argued that DRM-induced false memories stem from associative processes at encoding, whereas categorized list false memories arise from semantic confusion at retrieval. Knott and Dewhurst tested this hypothesis by manipulating attention at study and test phases to determine if the mechanisms producing false memories differ between the two list types. The researchers conducted three experiments using undergraduate participants. Experiment 1 manipulated attention at encoding, with participants studying word lists under full attention or while performing a random number generation (RNG) task to divide attention; testing occurred under full attention. Experiment 2 manipulated attention at retrieval, with full attention during study and either full attention or RNG during the recognition test. Experiment 3 manipulated attention at both encoding and retrieval. All experiments utilized a one-step remember/know/guess procedure to distinguish between recollection-based ("remember") and familiarity-based ("know") responses. Stimuli included DRM lists (semantic associates of a critical lure) and categorized lists (members of a semantic category with a typical exemplar as the lure). The results demonstrated that divided attention at encoding reduced false "remember" responses for both DRM and categorized lists, while divided attention at retrieval increased false "remember" responses for both list types. Specifically, Experiment 1 showed that DA at study significantly reduced false recognition of critical lures in DRM lists, contradicting the claim that encoding manipulations do not affect categorized lists in the same manner. Experiment 2 revealed that DA at test increased false alarms for both list types. Crucially, the interaction between attention condition and list type was not significant for false "remember" responses in either experiment, indicating that the effects of divided attention were parallel for both DRM and categorized lists. Signal detection analyses further confirmed that discriminability was lower and response bias shifted under divided attention conditions for both list types. These findings challenge the view that DRM and categorized lists produce false memories through distinct mechanisms located exclusively at encoding or retrieval. Instead, the results support an activation-monitoring account where false memories in both procedures result from the generation of associates at encoding and failures of source monitoring at retrieval. The study concludes that the production of false memories is influenced by attentional resources at both stages of memory processing, regardless of the list type used. This suggests that the locus of false memory effects is not fundamentally different between associative and categorized lists, implying that both encoding and retrieval processes contribute to the illusion of memory for nonpresented items.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• inattentional change blindness