Performance in source-monitoring tests is not only determined by source memory but also by source guessing. Source guessing is not random as it is informed by two distinct mechanisms. (1) People may show a schema-based guessing bias and rely on cross-situationally stable world knowledge. (2) They may apply probability matching and rely on the specific item-source contingency experienced at encoding. According to probability matching theory, source guessing is based on probability matching when a specific contingency representation is available. This conclusion is derived from a source-monitoring paradigm in which no source judgements for detected new items are required. Here, we extend this paradigm to examine source guessing not only for detected old items but also for detected new items. The results suggest that participants take the old–new recognition status of the items into account when making source attributions. Probability matching is used only for detected old items: Source guessing sensitively reflects the item-source contingency for these items. For detected new items, participants resort to schema-based guessing. Using schema-based guessing rather than probability matching when judging detected new items may have the advantage that a newly acquired contingency representation that may only be locally valid is not generalised too readily at the expense of a schematic expectation that reflects a larger and more comprehensive learning history.
BamberD.van SantenJ. P. (2000). How to assess a model’s testability and identifiability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1999.1275
2.
BatchelderW. H.RieferD. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. Psychological Review, 97, 548–564. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210812
3.
BatchelderW. H.RieferD. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 57–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210812
4.
BayenU. J.KuhlmannB. G. (2011). Influences of source-item contingency and schematic knowledge on source monitoring: Tests of the probability-matching account. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.09.001
5.
BayenU. J.MurnaneK.ErdfelderE. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.197
6.
BayenU. J.NakamuraG. V.DupuisS. E.YangC. L. (2000). The use of schematic knowledge about sources in source monitoring. Memory & Cognition, 28, 480–500.
BellR.BuchnerA. (2011). Source memory for faces is determined by their emotional evaluation. Emotion, 11, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022597
9.
BellR.BuchnerA.MuschJ. (2010). Enhanced old-new recognition and source memory for faces of cooperators and defectors in a social-dilemma game. Cognition, 117, 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.020
10.
BellR.MiethL.BuchnerA. (2015). Appearance-based first impressions and person memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000034
11.
BellR.MiethL.BuchnerA. (2017). Emotional memory: No source memory without old-new recognition. Emotion, 17, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000211
12.
BoywittC. D.KuhlmannB. G.MeiserT. (2012). The role of source memory in older adults’ recollective experience. Psychology and Aging, 27, 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024729
BuchnerA.BellR.MehlB.MuschJ. (2009). No enhanced recognition memory, but better source memory for faces of cheaters. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.01.004
15.
DodsonC. S.HollandP. W.ShimamuraA. P. (1998). On the recollection of specific- and partial-source information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1121–1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1121
16.
EbnerN. C.RiedigerM.LindenbergerU. (2010). FACES—A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.351
17.
ErdfelderE.AuerT.-S.HilbigB. E.AßfalgA.MoshagenM.NadarevicL. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models. A review of the literature. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108
18.
GelmanA.RubinD. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7, 457–511. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
19.
HechlerS.NeyerF. J.KesslerT. (2016). The infamous among us: Enhanced reputational memory for uncooperative ingroup members. Cognition, 157, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.001
20.
HeckD. W.ArnoldN. R.ArnoldD. (2018). TreeBUGS: An R package for hierarchical multinomial-processing-tree modeling. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 264–284. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0869-7
21.
HicksJ. L.CockmanD. W. (2003). The effect of general knowledge on source memory and decision processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X%2802%2900537-5
22.
JohnsonM. K. (1997). Source monitoring and memory distortion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 352, 1733–1745. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0156
KeefeR. S. E.ArnoldM. C.BayenU. J.McEvoyJ. P.WilsonW. H. (2002). Source-monitoring deficits for self-generated stimuli in schizophrenia: Multinomial modeling of data from three sources. Schizophrenia Research, 57, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-9964%2801%2900306-1
KlauerK. C.WegenerI. (1998). Unraveling social categorization in the “who said what?” paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1155–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1155
27.
KroneisenM.WoeheL.RauschL. S. (2015). Expectancy effects in source memory: How moving to a bad neighborhood can change your memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0655-9
28.
KuhlmannB. G.BayenU. J.MeuserK.KornadtA. E. (2016). The impact of age stereotypes on source monitoring in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 31, 875–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000140
29.
KuhlmannB. G.VaterrodtB.BayenU. J. (2012). Schema bias in source monitoring varies with encoding conditions: Support for a probability-matching account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1365–1376. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028147
30.
LangnerO.DotschR.BijlstraG.WigboldusD. H. J.HawkS. T.van KnippenbergA. (2010). Presentation and validation of the Radboud Faces Database. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903485076
31.
LundqvistD.FlyktA.ÖhmanA. (1998). The Karolinska directed emotional faces—KDEF. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology Section, Karolinska Institutet.
32.
MalejkaS.BröderA. (2016). No source memory for unrecognized items when implicit feedback is avoided. Memory & Cognition, 44, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0549-8
33.
MeiserT. (2014). Analyzing stochastic dependence of cognitive processes in multidimensional source recognition. Experimental Psychology, 61, 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000261
34.
MeiserT.BröderA. (2002). Memory for multidimensional source information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.116
35.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
36.
MinearM.ParkD. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206543
37.
MoshagenM. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.42
O’BrienR. G.KaiserM. K. (1985). MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: An extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 316–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.316
40.
PhillipsP. J.WechslerH.HuangJ.RaussP. J. (1998). The FERET database and evaluation procedure for face-recognition algorithms. Image and Vision Computing, 16, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-8856(97)00070-X
41.
RieferD. M.BatchelderW. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95, 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.318
42.
SchaperM. L.MiethL.BellR. (2019). Adaptive memory: Source memory is positively associated with adaptive social decision making. Cognition, 186, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.014
43.
SingmannH.KellenD. (2013). MPTinR: Analysis of multinomial processing tree models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 560–575. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0259-0
44.
SpaniolJ.BayenU. J. (2002). When is schematic knowledge used in source monitoring?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.631
45.
StahlC.KlauerK. C. (2007). HMMTree: A computer program for latent-class hierarchical multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 267–273. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193157
46.
StarnsJ. J.HicksJ. L.BrownN. L.MartinB. A. (2008). Source memory for unrecognized items: Predictions from multivariate signal detection theory. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.1
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.
