Research has shown that list composition moderates the effects of encoding manipulations on memory performance; differential memory performance is observed at distinct levels of the independent variable in mixed lists, but not in pure lists. The current study aims to investigate the effect of list composition on predicted and actual memory performance using a semantic lie fabrication manipulation. In Experiment 1, participants either told the truth or fabricated a lie in response to a set of general knowledge questions in a mixed-list design, made memory predictions for each response, and received a free recall test. Experiments 2A and 2B compared the effect of list composition by employing mixed and pure lists, respectively. The results showed that the lie fabrication led to a metacognitive illusion in mixed lists by inducing a crossed double dissociation between memory and metamemory. Participants produced higher memory performance and lower memory predictions for lies than the truth. In contrast, predicted and actual memory performance were similar for truth and lies in pure lists. These findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge on list composition and have implications for situations where individuals need to maintain and remember their fabricated lies.
BattistaF.MangiulliI.HerterJ.CurciA.OtgaarH. (2020). The effects of repeated denials and fabrication on memory. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(4), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1767626
2.
BattistaF.MangiulliI.RiesthuisP.CurciA.OtgaarH. (2021). Do liars really remember what they lied upon? The impact of fabrication on memory. Memory, 29(8), 1076–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1960380
3.
BattistaF.OtgaarH. (2022). Research on the effects of lying on memory: A scientometric analysis and a call for new studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 837265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.837265
4.
BeggI.DuftS.LalondeP.MelnickR.SanvitoJ. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90016-8
5.
BenjaminA. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194388
6.
BenjaminA. S. (2007). Memory is more than just remembering: Strategic control of encoding, accessing memory, and making decisions. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 175–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(07)48005-7
7.
BenjaminA. S.BjorkR. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In RederL. (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 309–338): Erlbaum.
8.
BenjaminA. S.BjorkR. A.SchwartzB. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55
9.
BennettS. T.BenjaminA. S.MistryP. K.SteyversM. (2018). Making a wiser crowd: Benefits of individual metacognitive control on crowd performance. Computational Brain & Behavior, 1, 90–99.
10.
BeskenM. (2016). Picture-perfect is not perfect for metamemory: Testing the perceptual fluency hypothesis with degraded images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(9), 1417–1433. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000246
11.
BeskenM. (2018). Generating lies produces lower memory predictions and higher memory performance than telling the truth: Evidence for a metacognitive illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000459
12.
BeskenM.MulliganN. W. (2013). Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 897–903. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0307-8
13.
BeskenM.MulliganN. W. (2014). Perceptual fluency, auditory generation, and metamemory: Analyzing the perceptual fluency hypothesis in the auditory modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034407
14.
BückenC. A.OtgaarH.MangiulliI.RamakersN.MerckelbachH. (2023). Can false denials turn fact into fiction? The effect of false denials on memory for self-performed actions. Psychological Research, 87(3), 816–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01695-7
15.
ChrobakQ. M.ZaragozaM. S. (2008). Inventing stories: Forcing witnesses to fabricate entire fictitious events leads to freely reported false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1190–1195. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.6.1190
16.
ClarkS. E.BurchettR. E. R. (1994). Word frequency and list composition effects in associative recognition and recall. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202761
17.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A.KirkendolS. E.WyerM. M.EpsteinJ. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979
18.
DianiskaR. E.MeissnerC. A. (2023). The effect of lying on memory and metamemory when deception is repeated and volitional. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000036
19.
DodsonC. S.SchacterD. L. (2001). If I had said it I would have remembered it: Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(1), 155–161.
20.
DunloskyJ.MatveyG. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), 1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.5.1180
21.
EngelkampJ.ZimmerH. D. (1989). Memory for action events: A new field of research. Psychological Research, 51(4), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00309142
22.
FeldmanR. S.ForrestJ. A.HappB. R. (2002). Self-presentation and verbal deception: Do self-presenters lie more?Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2402_8
23.
FrankD. J.KuhlmannB. G. (2017). More than just beliefs: Experience and beliefs jointly contribute to volume effects on metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(5), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000332
24.
HarveyA. C.VrijA.LealS.HopeL.MannS. (2017). Deception and decay: Verbal lie detection as a function of delay and encoding quality. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.04.002
25.
HertzogC.DunloskyJ.RobinsonA. E.KidderD. P. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.22
26.
HighamP. A.BrunoD.PerfectT. J. (2010). Effects of study list composition on the word frequency effect and metacognitive attributions in recognition memory. Memory, 18(8), 883–899.
27.
HirshmanE.MulliganN. (1991). Perceptual interference improves explicit memory but does not enhance data-driven processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(3), 507–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.3.507
28.
HuC.HuangK.HuX.LiuY.YuanF.WangQ.FuG. (2015). Measuring the cognitive resources consumed per second for real-time lie-production and recollection: A dual-tasking paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 596. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00596
29.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
KayaS.BeskenM.BalC.Berjin İkeS. (2023). Online dating through lies: the effects of lie fabrication for personal semantic information on predicted and actual memory performance. Memory, 31(4), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2178660
31.
KleinR.RatliffK.VianelloM.Adams JrR. B.BahníkS.BernsteinM. J.NosekB. A. (2014). Data from investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 2(1), Article e4. https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.ad
32.
KomarG. F.MiethL.BuchnerA.BellR. (2023). The animacy effect on free recall is equally large in mixed and pure word lists or pairs. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 11499.
33.
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
34.
KoriatA.Ma’ayanH. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.001
MangiulliI.Van OorsouwK.CurciA.MerckelbachH.JelicicM. (2018). Feigning amnesia moderately impairs memory for a mock crime video. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 625. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00625
37.
McDanielM. A.BuggJ. M. (2008). Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.2.237
38.
McDanielM. A.EinsteinG. O. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.1.54
MulliganN. W.BuchinZ. L.WestJ. T. (2020). Assessing why the testing effect is moderated by experimental design. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(7), 1293.
42.
MulliganN. W.SmithS. A.BuchinZ. L. (2019). The generation effect and experimental design. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(8), 1422.
43.
NelsonT. O. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (26, pp. 125–173). Academic Press.
44.
NguyenK.McDanielM. A. (2015). The picture complexity effect: Another list composition paradox. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1026.
45.
OorsouwK. V.MerckelbachH. (2004). Feigning amnesia undermines memory for a mock crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 18(5), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.999
46.
Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612462588
OtgaarH.HoweM. L.MemonA.WangJ. (2014). The development of differential mnemonic effects of false denials and forced confabulations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(6), 718–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2148
50.
OtgaarH.RomeoT.RamakersN.HoweM. L. (2018). Forgetting having denied: The “amnesic” consequences of denial. Memory & Cognition, 46(4), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0781-5
51.
OzubkoJ. D.JoordensS. (2007). The mixed truth about frequency effects on free recall: Effects of study list composition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 871–876.
52.
PeynircioğluZ. F.TatzJ. R. (2019). Intensifying the intensity illusion in judgments of learning: Modality and cue combinations. Memory & Cognition, 47(3), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0875-8
53.
PickelK. (2004). When a lie becomes the truth: The effects of self generated misinformation on eyewitness memory. Memory, 12(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000072
54.
PoppE. Y.SerraM. J. (2016). Adaptive memory: Animacy enhances free recall but impairs cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000174
55.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from: https://www.R-project.org/
56.
RhodesM. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press.
57.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
58.
RieferD. M.RouderJ. N. (1992). A multinomial modeling analysis of the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202710
59.
RiesthuisP. (2024). Simulation-based power analyses for the smallest effect size of interest: A confidence-interval approach for minimum-effect and equivalence testing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(2), 25152459241240722.
60.
RiesthuisP.MangiulliI.BroersN.OtgaarH. (2022). Expert opinions on the smallest effect size of interest in false memory research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 203–215.
61.
RiesthuisP.OtgaarH.De CortA.BogaardG.MangiulliI. (2022). Creating a false alibi leads to errors of commission and omission. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(4), 936–945. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3982
62.
RiesthuisP.OtgaarH.MangiulliI.de TauziaR. (2020). Adopting a fictitious autobiography: Fabrication inflation or deflation?Memory, 28(6), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1771371
63.
RomeoT.OtgaarH.SmeetsT.LandströmS.JelicicM. (2019). The memory-impairing effects of simulated amnesia for a mock crime. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3508
64.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 225–237.
65.
SchaperM. L.KuhlmannB. G.BayenU. J. (2019). Metamemory expectancy illusion and schema-consistent guessing in source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 470–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000602
66.
SchmidtS. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?Memory & Cognition, 19, 523–542.
67.
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R.BosterF. J. (2010). The Prevalence of Lying in America: Three Studies of Self-Reported Lies. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x
68.
ShalviS.DanaJ.HandgraafM. J. J.De DreuC. K. W. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.001
69.
SlameckaN. J.GrafP. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4(6), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
70.
SonL. K.MetcalfeJ. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.204
71.
SporerS. L. (2016). Deception and cognitive load: Expanding our horizon with a working memory model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 420.
72.
SuchotzkiK.VerschuereB.Van BockstaeleB.Ben-ShakharG.CrombezG. (2017). Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychological Bulletin, 143(4), 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000087
73.
SunX.PunjabiP. V.GreenbergL. T.SeamonJ. G. (2009). Does feigning amnesia impair subsequent recall?Memory & Cognition, 37(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.1.81
74.
SusserJ. A.MulliganN. W. (2015). The effect of motoric fluency on metamemory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1014–1019. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0768-1
75.
SusserJ. A.MulliganN. W.BeskenM. (2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41(7), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0323-8
76.
TalmiD.LukB. T.McGarryL. M.MoscovitchM. (2007). The contribution of relatedness and distinctiveness to emotionally-enhanced memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(4), 555–574.
77.
TulvingE. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. Oxford University Press.
78.
UndorfM. (2020). Fluency illusions in metamemory. In ClearyA. M.SchwarzB. L. (Eds.), Memory quirks (pp. 150–174). Routledge.
79.
UndorfM.ErdfelderE. (2015). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluency. Memory & Cognition, 43(4), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0479-x
80.
Van OverscheldeJ. P.RawsonK. A.DunloskyJ. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(3), 289–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.10.003
81.
VeriginB. L.MeijerE. H.BogaardG.VrijA. (2019). Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars. PLoS One, 14(12), e0225566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225566
VieiraK. M.LaneS. M. (2013). How you lie affects what you remember. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(3), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.05.005
VrijA. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.
86.
VrijA.MannS. A.FisherR. P.LealS.MilneR.BullR. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y
87.
WalczykJ. J.HarrisL. L.DuckT. K.MulayD. (2014). A social-cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activationdecision-construction-action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22–36.
88.
WalczykJ. J.RoperK. S.SeemannE.HumphreyA. M. (2003). Cognitive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(7), 755–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.914
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
