» Articles » PMID: 31215012

More Evidence Against the Spinozan Model: Cognitive Load Diminishes Memory for "true" Feedback

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2019 Jun 20
PMID 31215012
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We tested two competing models on the memory representation of truth-value information: the Spinozan model and the Cartesian model. Both models assume that truth-value information is represented with memory "tags," but the models differ in their coding scheme. According to the Cartesian model, true information is stored with a "true" tag, and false information is stored with a "false" tag. In contrast, the Spinozan model proposes that only false information receives "false" tags. All other (i.e., untagged) information is considered as true by default. Hence, in case of cognitive load during feedback encoding, the latter model predicts a load effect on memory for "false" feedback, but not on memory for "true" feedback. To test this prediction, participants studied trivia statements (Experiment 1) or nonsense statements that allegedly represented foreign-language translations (Experiment 2). After each statement, participants received feedback on the (alleged) truth value of the statement. Importantly, half of the participants experienced cognitive load during feedback processing. For the trivia statements of Experiment 1, we observed a load effect on memory for both "false" and "true" feedback. In contrast, for the nonsense statements of Experiment 2, we found a load effect on memory for "true" feedback only. Both findings clearly contradict the Spinozan model. However, our results are also only partially in line with the predictions of the Cartesian model. For this reason, we suggest a more flexible model that allows for an optional and context-dependent encoding of "true" tags and "false" tags.

Citing Articles

Does sleep benefit source memory? Investigating 12-h retention intervals with a multinomial modeling approach.

Berres S, Erdfelder E, Kuhlmann B Mem Cognit. 2024; 53(2):467-493.

PMID: 38831160 PMC: 11868154. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01579-8.


The effect of value on context and target recollection in memory for truth and falsity.

Ford D, Nieznanski M Mem Cognit. 2024; 52(6):1451-1462.

PMID: 38570437 PMC: 11362491. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01554-3.


Remembering the truth or falsity of advertising claims: A preregistered model-based test of three competing theoretical accounts.

Nadarevic L, Bell R Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 31(5):2323-2331.

PMID: 38528303 PMC: 11543714. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02482-8.


Coping with high advertising exposure: a source-monitoring perspective.

Bell R, Mieth L, Buchner A Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):82.

PMID: 36064819 PMC: 9444107. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00433-2.


Source memory for advertisements: The role of advertising message credibility.

Bell R, Mieth L, Buchner A Mem Cognit. 2020; 49(1):32-45.

PMID: 32737705 PMC: 7819929. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-020-01075-9.

References
1.
Gilbert D, Tafarodi R, Malone P . You can't not believe everything you read. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993; 65(2):221-33. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.221. View

2.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

3.
Vogt V, Broder A . Independent retrieval of source dimensions: an extension of results by Starns and Hicks (2005) and a comment on the ACSIM measure. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(2):443-50. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.443. View

4.
Murnane K, Bayen U . An evaluation of empirical measures of source identification. Mem Cognit. 1996; 24(4):417-28. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200931. View

5.
Piest B, Isberner M, Richter T . Don't believe everything you hear: Routine validation of audiovisual information in children and adults. Mem Cognit. 2018; 46(6):849-863. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0807-7. View