Abstract
Between-list manipulations of memory strength through repetition commonly generate a mirror effect, with more hits and fewer false alarms for strengthened items. However, this pattern is rarely seen with within-list manipulations of strength. In three experiments, we investigated the conditions under which a within-list mirror effect of strength (items presented once or thrice) is observed. In Experiments 1 and 2, we indirectly manipulated the overall subjective memorability of the studied lists by varying the proportion of nonwords. A within-list mirror effect was observed only in Experiment 2, in which a higher proportion of nonwords was presented in the study list. In Experiment 3, the presentation duration for each item (0.5 vs. 3 sec) was manipulated between groups with the purpose of affecting subjective memorability. A within-list mirror effect was observed only for the short presentation durations. Thus, across three experiments, we found the within-list mirror effect only under conditions of poor overall subjective memorability. We propose that when the overall subjective memorability is low, people switch their response strategy on an item-by-item basis and that this generates the observed mirror effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, J. (1976). An analysis of recognition and recall and of problems in their comparison. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.
Brown, J., Lewis, V. J., & Monk, A. F. (1977). Memorability, word frequency, and negative recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 461–473.
Chalmers, K. A., & Humphreys, M. S. (1998). Role of generalized and episode specific memories in the word frequency effect in recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 610–632.
Chalmers, K. A., Humphreys, M. S., & Dennis, S. (1997). A naturalistic study of the word frequency effect in episodic recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 780–784.
Criss, A. H. (2006). The consequences of differentiation in episodic memory: Similarity and the strength based mirror effect. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 461–478.
Criss, A. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2006). Differentiating the differentiation models: A comparison of the retrieving effectively from memory model (REM) and the subjective likelihood model (SLiM). Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 447–460.
Dobbins, I. G., & Kroll, N. E. A. (2005). Distinctiveness and the recognition mirror effect: Evidence for an item-based criterion placement heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1186–1198.
Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Memory & Cognition, 13, 8–20.
Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., & Kim, K. (1993 ). The regularities of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 100, 546–567.
Han, S., & Dobbins, I. G. (2008). Examining recognition criterion rigidity during testing using a biased-feedback technique: Evidence for adaptive criterion learning. Memory & Cognition, 36, 703–715.
Higham, P. A. (2002). Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited. Memory & Cognition, 30, 67–80.
Higham, P. A., Perfect, T. J., & Bruno, D. (2009). Investigating strength and frequency effects in recognition memory using type-2 signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 57–80.
Hockley, W. E., & Niewiadomski, M. W. (2007). Strength-based mirror effects in item and associative recognition: Evidence for within-list criterion changes. Memory & Cognition, 35, 679–688.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McClelland, J. L., & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 724–760.
Morrell, H. E. R., Gaitan, S., & Wixted, J. T. (2002). On the nature of the decision axis in signal-detection-based models of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 1095–1110.
Payne, B. K., Jacoby, L. L., & Lambert, A. J. (2004). Memory monitoring and the control of stereotype distortion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 52–64.
Rhodes, M. G., & Jacoby, L. L. (2007). On the dynamic nature of response criterion in recognition memory: Effects of base rate, awareness, and feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 305–320.
Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 803–814.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145–166.
Singer, M., & Wixted, J. T. (2006). Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift. Memory & Cognition, 34, 125–137.
Smith, S. M. (1988). Environmental context-dependent memory. In G. Davies & D. Thomson (Eds.), Memory in context: Context in memory (p. 13–33). New York: Wiley.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
Strack, F., & Bless, H. (1994). Memory for nonoccurrences: Metacognitive and presuppositional strategies. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 203–217.
Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1379–1396.
Tam, H. H. Y. (2006). Fluency-based production and memorability-based reduction of false alarms in recognition memory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton, UK.
Verde, M. F., & Rotello, C. M. (2007). Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 254–262.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141–165.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 547–565.
Wixted, J. T. (1992). Subjective memorability and the mirror effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 681–690.
Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 1341–1354.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by Grant RES-000-23-1375 from the Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC). Portions of this research were presented at the 24th BPS Annual Cognitive Section Conference at the University of Aberdeen, August 20–22, 2007, and at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Long Beach, CA, November 15–18, 2007.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bruno, D., Higham, P.A. & Perfect, T.J. Global subjective memorability and the strength-based mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition 37, 807–818 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.807
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.807