We examined the effects of drawing on correct and false recognition within the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) false memory paradigm. In Experiment 1, we compared drawing of a word’s referent using either a standard black pencil or coloured pencils relative to a read-only control group. Relative to reading, drawing in either black or coloured pencil similarly boosted correct recognition and reduced false recognition. Signal-detection analyses indicated that drawing reduced the amount of encoded memory information for critical lures and increased monitoring, indicating that both processes contributed to the false recognition reduction. Experiment 2 compared drawing of individual images of DRM list items relative to drawing integrated images using sets of DRM list items. False recognition was lower for drawing of individual images relative to integrated images—a pattern that reflected a decrease in encoded memory information but not monitoring. Therefore, drawing individual images improves memory accuracy in the DRM paradigm relative to a standard read-control task and an integrated-drawing task, which we argue is due to the recruitment of item-specific processing.
ArndtJ.RederL. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(02)00518-1
2.
BeggI.SniderA. (1987). The generation effect: Evidence for generalized inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.553
3.
BertschS.PestaB. J.WiscottR.McDanielM. A. (2007). The generation effect: A meta-analytic review. Memory & Cognition, 35, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193441
4.
BodnerG. E.JamiesonR. K.CormackD. T.McDonaldD.-L.BernsteinD. M. (2016). The production effect in recognition memory: Weakening strength can strengthen distinctiveness. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep000082
5.
BodnerG. E.TaikhA.FawcettJ. M. (2014). Assessing the costs and benefits of production in recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0485-1
6.
BrainerdC. J.ReynaV. F. (2002). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00192
7.
BurnsD. J. (2006). Assessing distinctiveness: Measures of item-specific and relational processes. In HuntR. R.WorthenJ. B. (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 109–130). Oxford University Press.
8.
BurnsD. J.JenkinsC. L.DeanE. E. (2007). Falsely recalled items are rich in item-specific information. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1630–1640. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193497
9.
CoaneJ. H.McBrideD. M.RaulersonB. A.IIIJordanJ. S. (2007). False memory in a short-term memory task. Experimental Psychology, 54, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.51.1.62
CraikF. I. M.LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
13.
DeeseJ. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046671
14.
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, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196152
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF3193146
16.
FernandesM. A.WammesJ. D.MeadeM. E. (2018). The surprisingly powerful influence of drawing on memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418755385
17.
FoleyM. A.WozniakK. H.GillumA. (2006). Imagination and false memory inductions: Investigating the role of process, content and source of imaginations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1119–1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1265
18.
GalloD. A. (2004). Using recall to reduce false recognition: Diagnostic and disqualifying monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.120
19.
GalloD. A. (2006). Associative illusions of memory: False memory research in DRM and related tasks. Psychology Press.
20.
GalloD. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition, 38, 833–848. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.833
21.
GalloD. A.RobertsM. J.SeamonJ. G. (1997). Remembering words not presented in lists: Can we avoid creating false memories?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209405
22.
GlanzerM.AdamsJ. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.5
23.
GunterR. W.BodnerG. E.AzadT. (2007). Generation and mnemonic encoding induce a mirror effect in the DRM paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.378/BF03193480
24.
HegeA. C. G.DodsonC. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: Evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(4), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.787
25.
HockleyW. E.CristiC. (1996). Tests of encoding tradeoffs between item and associative information. Memory & Cognition, 24, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF0320081
26.
HuffM. J.AschenbrennerA. J. (2018). Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model. Memory & Cognition, 46, 1287–1301. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0837-1
27.
HuffM. J.BodnerG. E. (2013). When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031338
28.
HuffM. J.BodnerG. E. (2014). All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 73, 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.02.004
29.
HuffM. J.BodnerG. E. (2019). Item-specific and relational processing both improve recall accuracy in the DRM paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470-21818-801427
30.
HuffM. J.BodnerG. E.FawcettJ. M. (2015). Effects of distinctive encoding on correct and false memory: A meta-analytic review of costs and benefits and their origins in the DRM paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 349–365.
31.
HuffM. J.BodnerG. E.GretzM. R. (2021). Distinctive encoding of a subset of DRM lists yields not only benefits, but also costs and spillovers. Psychological Research, 85, 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01241-y
32.
HuffM. J.Di MauroA.CoaneJ. H.O’BrienL. M. (2021). Mapping the time course of semantic activation in mediated false memory: Immediate classification, naming, and recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 483–496.
33.
HuntR. R.EinsteinG. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90138-9
34.
HuntR. R.SetaC. E. (1984). Category size effects in recall: The roles of relational and individual item information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.10.3.454
35.
MacLeodC. M.BodnerG. E. (2017). The production effect in memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417691356
36.
MassonM. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5
McCabeD. P.SmithA. D. (2002). The effect of warnings on false memories in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1065–1077. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194324
MeadeM. E.KleinM. D.FernandesM. A. (2020). The benefit (and cost) of drawing as an encoding strategy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819869188
41.
NairneJ. S.ThompsonS. R.PandeiradaJ. N. S. (2007). Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.263
42.
OzubkoJ. D.HourihanK. L.MacLeodC. M. (2012). Production benefits learning: The production effect endures and improves memory for text. Memory, 20, 717–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.699070
RoedigerH. L.IIIBalotaD.WatsonJ. (2001). Spreading activation and arousal of false memories. In Roediger IIIH. L.NairneJ. S.NeathI.SurprenantA. (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 95–115). American Psychological Association.
46.
RoedigerH. L.IIIMcDermottK. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
47.
RoedigerH. L.IIIWatsonJ. M.McDermottK. A.GalloD. A. (2001). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.3458/BF03196177
48.
RoenkerD. L.ThompsonC. P.BrownS. C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031355
49.
SchacterD. L.IsraelL.RacineC. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2611
50.
SeamonJ. G.LuoC. R.KopeckyJ. J.PriceC. A.RothschildL.FungN. S.SchwartzM. A. (2002). Are false memories more difficult to forget than accurate memories? The effect of retention interval on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1054–1064. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194323
51.
SlameckaN. J.GrafP. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
52.
WagenmakersE.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105
53.
WammesJ. D.MeadeM. E.FernandesM. A. (2016). The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1752–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1094494
54.
WammesJ. D.MeadeM. E.FernandesM. A. (2017). Learning terms and definitions: Drawing and the role of elaborative encoding. Acta Psychologica, 179, 104–113. https://doi.org/0.1016/j.actpsy.2017.07.008
55.
WickensT. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford University Press.
56.
YonelinasA. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864
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.
