The attribution of perceptual fluency in recognition memory: the role of expectation

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00022-0Get rights and content

Abstract

Three experiments investigate whether the influence of perceptual fluency on recognition memory depends on a perceptual match between study and test. The perceptual fluency of recognition test items was enhanced by briefly presenting a prime that matched the subsequent test item. Enhanced perceptual fluency increased positive recognition responses when the study and test were in the same sensory modality but not when the study and test were in different modalities. This interaction occurred only when modality was manipulated between subjects; when modality was manipulated within subjects, enhanced perceptual fluency increased positive recognition responses to all test items. An interaction between modality and perceptual fluency was also found using “counterfeit” study lists. The results suggest that the use of perceptual fluency as a heuristic in recognition memory depends on whether it is perceived as relevant to the recognition decision.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, the fluency of test words was enhanced by using a repetition-priming procedure that was first demonstrated by Jacoby and Whitehouse (1989). In all previous work using this technique, the study and test episodes have been in the same sensory modality. In the present experiment, the effect of the prime on recognition will be compared when there is a perceptual match and a perceptual mismatch between the study and test episodes. The question at hand is whether the influence of

Experiment 2

In Experiment 1, participants who heard an auditory study list could discount the perceptual fluency for all of the test items because none of the targets had appeared in the same sensory modality on the recognition test. Therefore, the perceptual fluency of test items was irrelevant for all of the targets on the recognition test. This was not the case in Experiment 2, as the modality of the study list was manipulated within-subjects, with participants experiencing both an auditory and a visual

Experiment 3

The results so far suggest that the use of perceptual fluency as a heuristic in recognition memory depends on whether prior experience with the stimulus creates an expectation of more fluent perceptual processing upon reoccurrence. This idea was tested again in Experiment 3. However, in this experiment, there were no words presented during the study phase. Instead, a counterfeit study list was presented. Participants were told that they were participating in an experiment investigating the

General discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the relevance of perceptual fluency as a sign of prior occurrence moderates its effect on recognition memory judgments. The results of three experiments show that it does. The results of Experiment 1 showed that when the study and test phases were both visual, the priming manipulation led to an increase in positive recognition responses. However, the priming manipulation had a significantly weaker effect on recognition responses when the study

Acknowledgements

A portion of the work was supported by Grant 1R03MH51470-01 from NIMH. We thank Vaibhav Bhatia, Laura Cavallari, Kristin Dust, Melissa Hardy, Tricia Leahy, and Kelly Vaccaro for assistance in testing participants.

References (31)

  • L.C Frigo et al.

    Revelation without presentation: Counterfeit study list yields robust revelation effect

    Memory and Cognition

    (1999)
  • A Gellatly et al.

    Salience and awareness in the familiarity-priming effect

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

    (1995)
  • G Gillund et al.

    A retrieval model for both recognition and recall

    Psychological Review

    (1984)
  • P.A Higham et al.

    Judgment heuristics and recognition memory: Prime identification and target-processing fluency

    Memory & Cognition

    (2000)
  • D.L Hintzman

    Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace model

    Psychological Review

    (1988)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text