» Articles » PMID: 21264598

Automatic Processing Influences Free Recall: Converging Evidence from the Process Dissociation Procedure and Remember-know Judgments

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2011 Jan 26
PMID 21264598
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Dual-process theories of retrieval suggest that controlled and automatic processing contribute to memory performance. Free recall tests are often considered pure measures of recollection, assessing only the controlled process. We report two experiments demonstrating that automatic processes also influence free recall. Experiment 1 used inclusion and exclusion tasks to estimate recollection and automaticity in free recall, adopting a new variant of the process dissociation procedure. Dividing attention during study selectively reduced the recollection estimate but did not affect the automatic component. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1, and subjects additionally reported remember-know-guess judgments during recall in the inclusion condition. In the latter task, dividing attention during study reduced remember judgments for studied items, but know responses were unaffected. Results from both methods indicated that free recall is partly driven by automatic processes. Thus, we conclude that retrieval in free recall tests is not driven solely by conscious recollection (or remembering) but also by automatic influences of the same sort believed to drive priming on implicit memory tests. Sometimes items come to mind without volition in free recall.

Citing Articles

Neuroscientist's Behavioral Toolbox for Studying Episodic-Like Memory.

Kuncicka D, Krajcovic B, Stuchlik A, Brozka H eNeuro. 2024; 11(8).

PMID: 39214694 PMC: 11366770. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0073-24.2024.


Adult age differences in subjective context retrieval in dual-list free recall.

Garlitch S, Richmond L, Ball B, Wahlheim C Memory. 2022; 31(2):218-233.

PMID: 36308518 PMC: 9992089. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2022.2139846.


Recallable but not recognizable: The influence of semantic priming in recall paradigms.

Ozubko J, Sirianni L, Ahmad F, MacLeod C, Addante R Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2021; 21(1):119-143.

PMID: 33409957 PMC: 7994187. DOI: 10.3758/s13415-020-00854-w.


Disrupters as Well as Monitors: Roles of Others During and After Collaborative Remembering in the DRM Procedure.

Nie A, Ke C, Li M, Guo B Adv Cogn Psychol. 2020; 15(4):276-289.

PMID: 32494313 PMC: 7251628. DOI: 10.5709/acp-0275-1.


Longitudinal socioemotional pathways between retrospective early life maternal relationship quality and episodic memory in older adulthood.

Sharifian N, Kraal A, Zaheed A, Sol K, Zahodne L Dev Psychol. 2019; 55(11):2464-2473.

PMID: 31436459 PMC: 6813874. DOI: 10.1037/dev0000805.


References
1.
Jennings J, Jacoby L . Automatic versus intentional uses of memory: aging, attention, and control. Psychol Aging. 1993; 8(2):283-93. DOI: 10.1037//0882-7974.8.2.283. View

2.
Clark-Foos A, Marsh R . Recognition memory for valenced and arousing materials under conditions of divided attention. Memory. 2008; 16(5):530-7. DOI: 10.1080/09658210802007493. View

3.
Roediger 3rd H, Payne D . Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: a puzzle for generate/recognize theories. Mem Cognit. 1985; 13(1):1-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198437. View

4.
Isaac C, Mayes A . Rate of forgetting in amnesia: II. Recall and recognition of word lists at different levels of organization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999; 25(4):963-77. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.25.4.963. View

5.
Hay J, Jacoby L . Separating habit and recollection: memory slips, process dissociations, and probability matching. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996; 22(6):1323-35. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.22.6.1323. View