1. References Arndt, J. & Hirshman, E. (1998). True and false recognition in MINERVA2: Explanation from a global matching perspective. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 371-391. Benjamin, A.S. (2001). On the dual effects of repetition on false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 941-947. Brainerd, C.J., Reyna, V.F. & Kneer, R. (1995). False-recognition reversal: When similarity is distinctive. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 157-185. Gallo, DA. (2004) Using recall to reduce false recognition: diagnostic and disqualifying monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 120-128. Heit, E., Brockdorff, N., & Lamberts, K. (2004). Strategic processes in false recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 380-386. Jones, TC, & Jacoby, LL. (2001). Feature and conjunction errors in recognition memory: evidence for dual-process theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 82- 102. Mintzer, M.Z. & Griffiths, R.R. (2001). False Recognition in Triazolam-Induced Amnesia. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 475-492. Nelson, D.L., McEvoy, C.L., & Schreiber, T.A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/ Robinson, K.J.,& Roediger, H.L. (1997). Associative processes in false recall and false recognition. Psychological Science, 8, 231-237. Roediger, H.L., Watson, J.M., McDermott, K.B., & Gallo, D.A. (2001). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385-407. Tussing, A.A., & Greene, R.L. (1999). Differential effects of repetition on true and false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 520-533. The Effects of Repetition, Associations, and Retrieval Speed on False Memory Christine Gould & Jason Arndt Middlebury College Abstract An experiment examined the effects of the number of associates presented per theme and study item repetition on false memory in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. The effects of those variables on activation and monitoring processes were assessed by manipulating retrieval time. The results are consistent with the interpretation that increasing the number of associates studied increases activation of lure items, while increasing the number of associates studied increases activation of lure items, while increasing the number of study item presentations increases both activation and monitoring processes. Conclusions  Differential effect of study list repetition in the four associate condition under speeded and unspeeded conditions provides evidence for the contribution of two processes to false memory, consistent with contemporary theories of false memory in the DRM paradigm (e.g. Brainerd, et al., 1995; Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Roediger, et al., 2001).  Results suggest that increasing the number of associates studied has a relatively selective effect on activation processes, and does not also compromise monitoring processes by limiting the ability of participants to use disqualifying monitoring (Gallo, 2004).  No evidence that increasing study repetition affected false recognition in the one associate condition. Lack of increase in false recognition with speeded retrieval suggests that increased lure activation resulting from study repetition may be limited to conditions where multiple associates of a lure are studied. Correspondence Please address correspondence to Jason Arndt (jarndt@middlebury.edu). Theoretical Background  Most theories concerning the basis of errors in recognition memory maintain that two processes contribute to the levels of errors observed. It is typically proposed that one processes produces increases in false memory, while a second process serves to reduce false memory.  Activation-Monitoring Theory (Roediger, Watson, McDermott, & Gallo, 2001).  Fuzzy-Trace Theory (Brainerd, Reyna, & Kneer, 1995)  Familiarity vs. recollection (Jones and Jacoby, 2001) Manipulations ◊Present study used the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm to study false memory ◊Manipulated the number of associates related to a lure item that is presented in study lists as well as the number of repetitions of study items.  Previous studies have found that increasing the number of associates presented at study increases false memory (Arndt & Hirshman, 1998; Gallo & Roediger, 2003; Mintzer & Griffiths, 2001; Robinson & Roediger, 1997; Tussing & Greene, 1999).  The effect of repetition of study items is less straightforward.  Seamon, et al. (2002) found that a small number of repetitions increases false recognition, but a larger number of repetitions decreases false recognition.  Benjamin (2001) found that increasing repetition increased false memory under speeded retrieval conditions, but reduced false memory under unspeeded retrieval conditions. ◊The effects of these two variables on activation and monitoring processes were investigated by manipulating retrieval time (Benjamin, 2001; Heit, Brockdorf, & Lamberts, 2004).  Speeded retrieval should primarily reflect activation processes  Unspeeded retrieval should reflect the combined influence of activation and monitoring processes Lure False Alarms False Alarms to New Items Hits to Old Items Method and Design  Materials: 80 sets of four items (referred to as themes below) from Nelson, McEvoy, and Schreiber (1998)  All items in a given theme produced a single item (the lure item) in free association with a nonzero probability  Theme items: oak, sap, stump, leaf  Lure item: tree  Design 2 (Number of Associates Studied) x 2 (Study Repetitions) x 2 (Retrieval Speed), all manipulated within subjects  Number of Associates Studied manipulated within subjects and within each study list  Either 1 or 4 associates (presented as a block) were presented per theme  Study Repetitions manipulated within subjects and within each study list  Either 1 or 4 repetitions of the theme  Retrieval Speed manipulated within subjects and between test lists  Participants had either 750 msec or an unlimited amount of time to make recognition decisions  For half of the participants, the speeded test was given for the first two lists, and for the other half, the unspeeded test was given for the first two test lists. ◊Four study lists, each study list composed of 20 themes  Four test lists composed of all lures associated with studied items (20 items), the study items from the one associate themes (10 items), two of the four study items from each four associate themes (20 items), and two low- level distractors from each theme (40 items). Results (N = 36) ◊False Alarms to Lure Items ◊In the speeded condition, as study repetition increased, the lure false alarm rate increased in the four associate condition, but not in the one associate condition. ◊In the unspeeded condition, lure false alarms were higher when four associates were studied than when one associate was studied. No significant interactions were found. ◊Hits to Study Items ◊As study repetition increased, the hit rate increased.  False Alarms to New Items  The false alarm rate to low-level distractors was significantly lower in the one associate condition than in the four associate condition Predictions  Study repetition should increase both activation and monitoring, which would account for differential effects of repetition on false recognition when combined with manipulations of retrieval time (Benjamin, 2001), and non- monotonic function relating false recognition to number of repetitions.  False memory should increase with repetition under speeded retrieval, but decrease with repetition under unspeeded retrieval.  Increasing the number of associates presented per theme will either increase activation processes or decrease monitoring processes.  If activation alone is affected by number of associates, false recognition should increase with number of associates under both speeded and unspeeded retrieval conditions.  If monitoring (i.e. disqualifying monitoring, Gallo, 2004) is reduced by increasing the number of associates studied, false recognition increases should only be observed under unspeeded retrieval conditions.