1. Conclusions  Results replicate prior reports of effects of font matching on accurate recognition of study items (Reder, et al., 2002)  Higher hits when fonts matched between study and test than when font mismatched between study and test  Results are consistent with the view that the effects of presenting study items in distinctive fonts on false recognition are primarily the result of encoding processes  Mismatching font between study and test did not strongly reduce the effects of font condition on false recognition in either experiment  The decline in false recognition between the match and mismatch condition in Experiment 2 is consistent with the contribution of retrieval processes to false recognition  Font matching between study and test inflates levels of false recognition, rather than decreasing levels of false recognition References Arndt, J., & Reder, L.M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 1-15. Gallo, D.A. (2004). Using recall to reduce false recognition: Diagnostic and disqualifying monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 120-128. 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/ Reder, L.M., Donavos, D., & Erickson, M.A. (2002). Perceptual match effects in direct tests of memory: The role of contextual fan. Memory & Cognition, 30, 312-323. Rotello, C.M., Macmillan, N.A., & Van Tassel, G. (2000). Recall to reject in recognition: Evidence from ROC curves. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 67-88. Schacter, D.L., Israel, L., & Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 1-24. Smith, R., & Hunt, R.R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 710-715. Distinctive Information and False Recognition: The contribution of encoding And Retrieval Factors Jason Arndt & Jacob Carney Middlebury College Abstract Two experiments examined the effect of presenting study items in unusual looking fonts on semantic false recognition. In one condition, each font was associated with a single study item. In a second condition, each font was presented ten times in the study list and was associated with a particular studied theme. In order to distinguish between encoding and retrieval contributions, study-test match of fonts was also manipulated. Both experiments found that false recognition levels were lower when there was a unique association between a font and a single study item, and the magnitude of this effect did not change when study-test match of fonts was manipulated. Taken together, these results are inconsistent with theories proposing that false recognition reduction caused by presentation of words in unusual fonts is the product of the differential effectiveness of retrieval monitoring across conditions. Theoretical Background  Previous research has indicated that the study of visual information reduces semantic false recognition (Arndt & Reder, 2003; Schacter, Israel, & Racine, 1999; Smith & Hunt, 1998).  Arndt and Reder (2003) found that when unusual-looking fonts (e.g., Gadzoox) are uniquely associated with study words, false recognition is lower than when unusual-looking fonts are associated with multiple study words. This result was attributed the influence of encoding factors.  Retrieval-based theories (Rotello, MacMillan & Van Tassel, 2000) offer a plausible alternative explanation because test fonts were always associated with a theme’s study presentation in Arndt and Reder (2003).  Test fonts may offer a cue for searching memory for study items presented in a given font. If participants retrieve all study items presented in a font, they can reject a lure (Gallo, 2004).  Retrieval of study items presented in a given font is easier to accomplish when a single study item is associated with a font than when multiple study items are associated with a font.  The manipulation of study-test font match has been shown to reduce hits and recollection of study items (Reder, Donavos & Erickson, 2002).  How will study-test match influence false recognition? Encoding-Based Models  Presentation of study items in unusual-looking fonts enhances encoding of item-specific information and reduces encoding of relational information  Strength of information in memory supporting lure false memory is lower when unusual-looking fonts are studied Retrieval-Based Models  Retrieval-based models predict that participants attempt to use the test font to retrieve study items in an effort to verify the study status of test items (Rotello, et al., 2000)  Presenting a test item in a font used to present multiple study items reduces the ability to retrieve all study items presented in that font (Gallo, 2004)  Matching font from study to test allows the potential retrieval of study items associated with a lure that were presented in the test font  Mismatching font from study to test disallows retrieval of study items associated with a lure that were presented in the test font (Experiment 1)  Presenting all test items in a font not used at study should eliminate ability to use font-based retrieval monitoring (Experiment 2) Experiments  Materials: 96 sets of ten items (referred to as themes henceforth) from Nelson, McEvoy, and Schreiber (1998)  All items in a given theme produced a single item (the lure item) in free association with some nonzero probability  Theme items: rose, stem, blossom, lily, vase, dandelion, orchid, tulip, petals, daisy  Lure item: flower  Each study list composed of multiple themes presented in blocked format  Design: Font condition (correlated vs. unique) and Study-Test match (match vs. mismatch) both varied within subjects  Unusualness of visual information at study was manipulated by presenting study items in unusual-looking fonts (see Figure 1; Arndt & Reder, 2003; Reder, Donavos, & Erickson, 2002).  Correlated condition: all study items in a theme presented in the same font (each font presented ten times)  Unique condition: a different font used to present each word in a theme  Test lists composed of studied items, lures associated with studied items, and a comparable set of unstudied theme items, as well as lure items related to unstudied themes. Retrieval Conditions Match condition (Experiments 1 & 2)  Studied items presented in same font utilized at study  Lure items presented in a font utilized to present an associated theme item  In the Unique condition, only one theme item presented at study in the font used to present lure at test  In the Correlated condition, ten theme items presented at study in the font used to present lure at test Mismatch condition (Experiment 1)  Studied items’ font of presentation switched with a different theme presented at study  Lure items presented in a font utilized at study, but not a font used to present its associates Mismatch condition (Experiment 2)  All test items (studied and lure) presented in a non-distinctive looking font (Helvetica) Predictions  Encoding-based model  Font condition should affect false recognition similarly in match and mismatch conditions (Unique < Correlated)  Retrieval-based model  Font condition should affect false recognition in the match condition (Unique < Correlated), but not in the mismatch condition (Unique = Correlated) Results  No effect of font condition on hits in either experiment  Study-test match affected hits in both experiments  Match > Mismatch  Font condition affected lure false alarms in both experiments  Correlated > Unique  Study-test match did not affect lure false alarms in Experiment 1, and produced a reduction in lure false alarms in Experiment 2 (Mismatch < Match)  Study-test match did not interact with font condition on lure false alarms in either experiment Please address correspondence to Jason Arndt (jarndt@middlebury.edu) Lure False Alarms Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Hits Experiment 1Experiment 2 Unique - Match Study: ROSE STEM BLOSSOM Test: ROSE STEM Flower Correlated - Match Study: ROSE STEM BLOSSOM Test: ROSE STEM FLOWER Figure 1: Experiment 1 Conditions Unique - Mismatch Study: ROSE STEM BLOSSOM Test: Rose Stem flower Correlated - Mismatch Study: ROSE STEM BLOSSOM Test: ROSE STEM FLOWER