© 2018 (Ga cía-Bajos, Migueles & Aizpu ua) This is an open access a icle licensed unde he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i s License
(h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Psicológica (2018), 39, 261-278
doi: 10.2478/psicolj-2018-0011
Di e en bias mechanisms in ecall and ecogni ion o
concep ual and pe cep ual in o ma ion o an e en
El i a Ga cía-Bajos1*, Malen Migueles1 & Alai z Aizpu ua1
1Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y UPV/EHU, Donos ia-San Sebas ián
(Spain)
The aim o his esea ch was o s udy he memo y and esponse bias o
concep ual and pe cep ual in o ma ion in he ecall and ecogni ion o an
e en . The pa icipan s wa ched a mo ie aile ideo and hei memo y o
e bal and isual ac ions and de ails was e alua ed using speci ic ecall
ques ions o a ue/ alse ecogni ion ask. The pa icipan s ecalled and
ecognized ac ions be e han de ails, and isual in o ma ion be e han
e bal in o ma ion. Memo y biases a ec ed ecall and ecogni ion di e en ly.
The pa icipan s showed a high endency o accep alse e bal ac ions
consis en wi h he gis o he e en as ue in he ecogni ion ask, while in
he ecall ask he pa icipan s we e mo e likely o answe inco ec ly
ques ions in ol ing isual pe cep ual de ails. These esul s e lec he
di e en mechanisms which a e in ol ed in he p ocessing and cogni i e
managemen o concep ual and pe cep ual in o ma ion o an e en .
The human cogni i e sys em is go e ned by a p inciple o economy.
The in o ma ion p ocessing sys em is based on using enough global aspec s
o be able o iden i y an e en while igno ing speci ic de ails which equi e
a en ion o p ocessing esou ces (Schank & Abelson, 1977). This
global/local (Fö s e , 2012), concep ual/pe cep ual, hema ic/li e al (B aine d
& Reyna, 1990), au oma ic/con olled s yle o p ocessing is also
cha ac e is ic o memo y in he eal wo ld (Neisse , 1967; Cohen & Conway,
2008). Fo example, he dis inc ion be ween gis ( hema ic and concep ual
in o ma ion) and li e al o e ba im aces (pe cep ual ea u es) in he uzzy
ace heo y (e.g., B aine d & Reyna, 1990) has been used o explain memo y
Acknowledgmen s: This esea ch was suppo ed by g an s PSI2012-32960 and PSI2015-
63709-P (MINECO/FEDER, EU) om he Spanish Minis y o Economy and
Compe i i eness, and GIU15/02 om he Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y UPV/EHU.
*Co esponding au ho : El i a Ga cía-Bajos. Psychology Facul y. Uni e si y o he
Basque Coun y UPV/EHU. A enida Tolosa, 70. 20018 Donos ia-San Sebas ián, Spain. E-
mail: el i a.ga [email protected].
E. Ga cía-Bajos, M. Migueles, A. Aizpu ua
262
pe o mance in e e yday li e. In e ms o he uzzy ace heo y, wo
independen memo y ep esen a ions o an e en a e o med in pa allel du ing
encoding; a e ba im o li e al ace ha con ains he su ace s uc u e and
speci ic de ails, and a gis ep esen a ion ha main ains he gene al meaning
o heme o he encoded e en . While hema ic in o ma ion, plo and sc ip
o an e en a e p ocessed gene ically and au oma ically, encoding speci ic
de ails equi es a en ion and g ea e p ocessing abili y. Fuzzy- ace heo y
p inciples o gis ex ac ion and e ba im p ocessing a e compa ible wi h
sc ip -d i en p ocessing in e en memo y, whe e p io knowledge o schemas
guide encoding and e ie al. P edic ions include ha main ac ions ha
ep esen he e en a e be e emembe ed han pa icula de ails ha equi e
a en ion, and ha au oma ic sc ip in e ences o gis in o ma ion can also be
a sou ce o e o . The main objec i e o his s udy was o analyse he
di e ences in memo y be ween ecall and ecogni ion o concep ual and
pe cep ual in o ma ion o an e en .
In e en memo y, ac ions in ol e mo e concep ual p ocessing, make
up he gis o he e en , accu a ely cap u e he a gumen and sequence o
ac s, and equi e less cogni i e e o o p ocess han li e al in o ma ion o
pe cep ual de ails. In he ee ecall o an e en , pa icipan s emembe he
main ac ions be e han he de ails and make e y ew mis akes (e.g.,
Migueles & Ga cía-Bajos, 1999; Woolnough & MacLeod, 2001). When
asked speci ic ques ions abou an e en , pa icipan s also emembe mo e
concep ual han pe cep ual in o ma ion co ec ly, howe e , compa ed wi h
ee ecall, pa icipan s p oduce mo e e o s, mainly in pe cep ual
in o ma ion i ems (Ga cía-Bajos, Migueles, & Aizpu ua, 2014; Migueles,
Ga cía-Bajos, Aizpu ua, 2016). In ecogni ion asks, on he o he hand,
pa icipan s inco ec ly accep as ue mo e concep ual in o ma ion, such as
he ac ions con ained in he sc ip o he e en , han pe cep ual de ails, and
hey do so wi h g ea e con idence (e.g., Migueles & Ga cía-Bajos, 1999).
The di e gence o he esul s in he ecall and ecogni ion o he ac ions and
de ails o an e en can be a ibu ed, on he one hand, o di e ences in he
abili y o p ocess concep ual and pe cep ual in o ma ion (Fö s e , 2012;
Ga cía-Bajos e al., 2014), and, on he o he , o he di e en e ie al
p ocesses used in ecall and ecogni ion.
Rega ding he ype o memo y e alua ion asks, a ecall ask equi es
g ea e cogni i e e o han a ecogni ion ask (e.g., Dancke & C aik,
2013). While ecall in ol es sel -ini ia ed sea ch and e ie al, a ecogni ion
ask p o ides mo e e icien e ie al cues and in ol es compa ison p ocesses
be ween he a ailable and he s o ed in o ma ion. The mechanisms
suppo ing ecogni ion a e media ed by wo p ocesses, amilia i y and
ecollec ion (Mandle , 1980; o a e iew see Diana, Yonelinas, &
Bias in e en ecall and ecogni ion
263
Rangana h, 2007), whe eas success ul ecall depends la gely on conscious
ecollec ion (Jacoby, To h, & Yonelinas, 1993). Familia i y is an au oma ic
p ocess associa ed wi h he luency wi h which an i em is p ocessed
(Whi lesea & Leboe, 2000). In con as , ecollec ion is a s a egic p ocess,
which in ol es eins a emen o he memo y ace. While amilia i y is
unique o ecogni ion, ecollec ion is iewed as a ecall-like p ocess,
implying ha he ac i e sea ch o he memo y ace is simila o ecall and
ecogni ion. E en so, he ecollec ion p ocesses unde lying ecall and
ecogni ion a e suppo ed by dissocia i e neu ocogni i e mechanisms du ing
e ie al (Sadeh, Ma il, & Goshen-Go s ein, 2012). Recall in ol es
gene a ing in o ma ion, while ecogni ion does no , and hus ecall is mo e
demanding han ecogni ion (Cabeza e al., 1997).
In e e yday li e, people o en answe unbiased closed ques ions abou
he con en s o daily e en s and espond o ue/ alse ecogni ion ques ions.
In his s udy, we examined memo y accu acy and biases o concep ual
in o ma ion (ac ions) and pe cep ual in o ma ion (de ails) in a closed-
ques ions ecall ask and in a ecogni ion ask using a ideo o a mo ie aile .
A no el y o he s udy is ha he same memo y con en s we e es ed in ecall
and in ecogni ion. We also made a dis inc ion be ween he e bal and isual
in o ma ion modali y o he e en o bo h ypes o con en s (ac ions and
de ails). I has been known ha memo y o pic u es and isual in o ma ion
is gene ally be e han o wo ds o e bal in o ma ion (McB ide & Doshe ,
2002). I is also known ha we s o e he meaning o gis o a message wi hou
e e ence o he o iginal syn ac ic o lexical con en using a p ocess o
abs ac ion (Alba & Hashe , 1983). Howe e , he in e ac ions be ween he
ype o con en s (ac ions and de ails) and he senso y modali y o he
in o ma ion ( e bal, isual) ha e no been analysed be o e sys ema ically o
e en memo y.
In wo ecen s udies (Ga cía-Bajos e al., 2014; Migueles e al., 2016),
we disco e ed a endency in pa icipan s o answe closed ques ions
e oneously in he ecall o an e en when he i ems included pe cep ual
de ails a he han concep ual in o ma ion, while he opposi e pa e n is
common in ecogni ion asks (e.g., Za agoza, Mi chell, Paymen , & D i dahl,
2011). I is possible ha , in he ecogni ion ask, he main sou ce o e o s
may lie in he e ie al luency o he concep ual in o ma ion (Doss,
Blues one, & Gallo, 2016; Mi andola, To alini, G assano, Co noldi, &
Melinde , 2014; Za agoza e al., 2011). Acco ding o he uzzy ace heo y
(B aine d & Reyna, 1990), indi iduals es ablish and e ain a well-in eg a ed
ace o he ea u es sha ed among di e en con en s o an e en , and he
in o ma ion ha is consis en o cong uen wi h he gis o he e en is luen ly
p ocessed; consequen ly, indi iduals expe ience a s ong sense o amilia i y
264 E. Ga cía-Bajos, M. Migueles, A. Aizpu ua
o ecollec ion when hema ic in o ma ion is p esen ed a e ie al, which in
u n migh lead o ecogni ion e o s.
In con as , an impo an sou ce o e o s in he ecall o an e en can
be he ac i a ion o pe cep ual in o ma ion accompanying e ie al (Ga cía-
Bajos e al., 2014; Migueles e al., 2016). Al hough i has been obse ed ha
pe cep i e de ails seem o lend e aci y o e ie ed memo ies (Is ael &
Schac e , 1997; Mi chell & Johnson, 2009; Slo nick & Schac e , 2004;
S o beck, 2013) and ha p esen ing in o ma ion isually a he han au ally
(Smi h & Hun , 1998) o using pic u es ins ead o wo ds a encoding (Dodson
& Schac e , 2001; Schac e , Is ael, & Racine, 1999) can educe he incidence
o alse memo ies in ecogni ion, e o s in ecall may be due o he i idness
o he e ie al o pe cep ual in o ma ion, pa icula ly o isual de ails. Fo
example, imagining he colou o a ca o ec ea ing a de ail may enhance
con idence ha i ac ually occu ed and lead o e o s in ecall asks. The
in luen ial eali y-moni o ing model (Johnson & Raye, 1981) and he mo e
gene al sou ce-moni o ing heo y (Johnson, Hash oudi, & Lindsay, 1993)
ha e also been heo e ically use ul in examining concep ual and pe cep ual
memo y e o s. Dis o ion and alse memo ies a e due o e o s in
disc imina ing be ween pe cei ed in o ma ion and ela ed con en s om
o he sou ces, such as in e nal ecollec ions gene a ed h ough in e ences o
hough , p io knowledge ac i a ion, la e elabo a ions, o pos -e en de ails.
In o de o examine he e ec o he ype o con en s and in o ma ion
modali y on co ec memo y and e o s, we examined he e bal and isual
aspec o bo h he ac ions and he de ails o he e en in he mo ie aile .
In addi ion, we examined esponse con idence as a me amemo y
measu e o belie in accu acy in ecall and ecogni ion. Recollec ion and
belie in accu acy a e dis inc componen s o emembe ing (Rubin, 2006;
Scobo ia, Tala ico, & Pascal, 2015). Belie in accu acy is he deg ee o which
a ecollec ed e en is app aised o co espond o wha was expe ienced a he
ime o he e en . In o he wo ds, belie in accu acy indexes he moni o ing
o he quali y o ecollec ions. Subjec i e expe ience o esponse accu acy
will es memo y p ecision and bias mechanisms o e bal and isual ac ions
and de ails in he ecall and ecogni ion o an e en . Al hough no esponse
con idence da a a e a ailable o he ecall o daily e en s, in eyewi ness
memo y esea ch i has been obse ed ha con iden wi nesses a e no
necessa ily accu a e wi nesses, as hey can gi e inco ec answe s in ecall
and accep alse s a emen s in ecogni ion and do so wi h as high deg ee o
con idence as i he in o ma ion we e ue (e.g., Ga cía-Bajos, Migueles, &
Aizpu ua, 2012). In any e en , esponse con idence will be also media ed by
he ype o con en s e alua ed and he p ocessing s yle in ol ed in ecall and
ecogni ion. Thus, con idence will end o be g ea e in he esponses o
Bias in e en ecall and ecogni ion
265
ac ions- ela ed i ems han o pe cep ual de ails because concep ual
in o ma ion in ol es g ea e p ocessing luency (Doss e al., 2016).
Con idence will be also g ea e o isual han e bal in o ma ion because
isual in o ma ion p o ides pe cep ual e idence o ecollec i e memo y (e.g.,
Mille & Gazzaniga, 1998).
METHOD
Pa icipan s. Six y eigh olun ee psychology s uden s om he
Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y UPV/EHU pa icipa ed in he expe imen ,
56 women and 12 men, wi h an a e age age o 22.59 yea s (SD = 4.17). Hal
o he pa icipan s comple ed a ecall ask and he o he hal comple ed a
ecogni ion ask. To con i m ha he s udy had su icien s a is ical powe , an
analysis using he G*POWER so wa e (Faul, E d elde , Lang, & Buchne ,
2007) was applied o de e mine how many pa icipan s would be equi ed o
achie e a powe o 0.8 wi h an alpha o .05 o de ec a medium e ec size o
= 0.25. A 2 (con en s: ac ions, de ails) x 2 (in o ma ion modali y: e bal,
isual) wi hin-pa icipan s ac o ial design, wi h memo y asks ( ecall,
ecogni ion) as be ween-g oups measu es would equi e 24 pa icipan s in
each g oup, ha is, less han he 34 pa icipan s es ed in each g oup.
Ma e ials. A mo ie aile o Con essions o a Shopaholic (2009)
di ec ed by P. J. Hogan, h p://www.you ube.com/wa ch? =8-WMLeQeV3c,
las ing 2.21 min, was used as he e en . A mo ie aile was chosen because
hey a e a ac i e, b ie ly summa ize he plo , include he main ac ions, and
o e a ange o speci ic de ails (see also Ga cía-Bajos e al., 2014).
Two memo y asks, a ecall ask and a ecogni ion ask, we e used o
e alua e he memo y o he cen al aspec s o he aile . The ecall ask
consis ed o 32 ques ions, 16 i ems on ac ions and 16 on de ails. In bo h asks,
he e we e 8 e bal in o ma ion ques ions (e.g., e bal ac ion: Wha does he
shopaholic say happens o he when she sees a shop?; e bal de ail: Wha
shoe b and does he shop assis an ecommend?) and 8 isual in o ma ion
ques ions (e.g., isual ac ion: How does she ge he c edi ca d back?; isual
de ail: Wha colou is he ca she a i es o wo k in?). The ecogni ion ask
consis ed o 32 ue/ alse s a emen s examining he same con en s as he
ecall ask (e.g., e bal ac ion: The shopaholic says she goes c azy when she
sees a shop; e bal de ail: The shop assis an ecommends P ada shoes; isual
ac ion: She c acks open a block o ice wi h a shoe o ge he c edi ca d back;
isual de ail: The ca she a i es o wo k in is yellow). The 32 ue/ alse
s a emen s o e bal and isual ac ions and de ails in he ecogni ion ask
we e coun e balanced ac oss pa icipan s. Hal he pa icipan s we e gi en
one e sion o he ask in which hal he e bal and isual ac ions and de ails
266 E. Ga cía-Bajos, M. Migueles, A. Aizpu ua
we e ue and he o he hal alse, while he o he hal o he pa icipan s
ecei ed he opposi e ue/ alse e sion o he s a emen s. The ques ions we e
o de ed ch onologically in bo h he ecall and ecogni ion asks and he e
we e no mo e han h ee consecu i e i ems o he same ype ( e bal, isual,
ac ions, de ails, ue o alse).
Design. A 2 (con en s: ac ions, de ails) x 2 (in o ma ion modali y:
e bal, isual) wi hin-pa icipan s ac o ial design was used. The co ec
esponses, commission e o s, accu acy, and esponse con idence in he ecall
and ecogni ion asks we e e alua ed. In o de o compa e ecall and
ecogni ion memo y, o co ec answe s he co ec esponses in ecall and
hi s in ecogni ion we e analysed, and o commission e o s he inco ec
esponses in ecall and alse ala ms in ecogni ion we e analysed.
P ocedu e. This s udy was app o ed by he Resea ch E hics Boa d o
he Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y UPV/EHU. All pa icipan s p o ided
ull in o med consen be o e comple ing his s udy. The pa icipan s we e
shown a ideo o he mo ie aile on a 2.5 x 2 me e p ojec ion sc een ia
compu e . They we e asked o pay close a en ion bu hey we e no old ha
hei memo y o he e en was going o be es ed. A e wa ching he aile ,
he pa icipan s we e asked o pe o m a dis ac ion ask in which hey we e
gi en 5 minu es o lis as many causes as possible o he cu en economic
c isis, and a u he 5 minu es o o e possible solu ions o he c isis.
Following his dis ac ion ask, 34 pa icipan s, ou o he o al o 68, we e
chosen a andom o do he ecall ask while he emaining 34 ca ied ou he
ecogni ion ask. The ecall ask equi ed he pa icipan s o answe 32
ques ions conce ning he e bal and isual ac ions and de ails con ained in
he aile . They we e asked o a emp answe ing all he ques ions, bu we e
allowed o lea e hem blank when hey did no know he answe . The
ecogni ion ask in ol ed he pa icipan s esponding ue o alse o 32
s a emen s (hal o which we e ue and he o he hal alse) which es ed he
same con en s as he ecall ask. In bo h asks, he pa icipan s we e equi ed
o a e hei le el o con idence in he esponse o each i em, on a scale om
0 (no ce ain y) o 7 (absolu e ce ain y). Pa icipan s ook be ween 8 and 10
min o answe he 32 ecall ques ions a hei own pace and be ween 5 and 8
min o comple e he ecogni ion ask. The en i e session ook app oxima ely
35 minu es.
RESULTS
The ecall ask was sco ed by wo judges, who assigned one poin o
e e y answe ed ques ion, whe he hey we e a co ec esponse o a
commission e o . The o e all in e a e s’ ag eemen , calcula ed by he
Bias in e en ecall and ecogni ion
267
Cohen’s Kappa es , was e y high (k = 0.91). The ew disc epancies we e
esol ed by a hi d independen judge. In he ue/ alse ecogni ion ask, he
co esponding co ec hi s and commission e o s ( alse ala ms) we e
e alua ed. The p opo ion o co ec esponses and commission e o s in
ecall (Table 1) we e calcula ed by di iding he numbe o co ec esponses
o commission e o s by he o al numbe o ecall ques ions. The p opo ion
o hi s and alse ala ms in ecogni ion (Table 2) we e calcula ed by di iding
he numbe o hi s o alse ala ms by he o al numbe o ue o alse
s a emen s in he ecogni ion ask. To compa e ecall and ecogni ion esul s,
he same p ocedu e was used o calcula e accu acy in ecall and ecogni ion
(e.g., Lis , 1986). Accu acy in ecall was calcula ed by di iding he
p opo ion o co ec esponses by he sum o he p opo ion o co ec
esponses and commission e o s. Accu acy in ecogni ion was calcula ed by
di iding he p opo ion o hi s by he sum o he p opo ion o hi s and alse
ala ms.
Recall. To analyse he p opo ion o co ec esponses, commission
e o s, unanswe ed ques ions and accu acy in he ecall ask o he e bal and
isual ac ions and de ails in he mo ie aile (Table 1), ou 2 (con en s:
ac ions, de ails) x 2 (in o ma ion modali y: e bal, isual) wi hin-pa icipan s
ac o ial ANOVAs we e used. The pos hoc compa isons o analysing
signi ican in e ac ions we e pe o med using he Bon e oni es .
Table 1. Mean p opo ion o co ec esponses, commission e o s, unanswe ed
ques ions and accu acy, and mean esponse con idence (0-7) in he ecall o a mo ie
aile (SDs in pa en heses).
Con en s
Ac ions
De ails
In o ma ion
Ve bal
Visual
Ve bal
Visual
Recall
Co ec esponses
Commission e o s
Unanswe ed ques ions
Accu acy
Recall con idence
Co ec ecall
Commission e o s
.51 (.17)
.27 (.17)
.22 (.21)
.65 (.18)
4.65 (1.22)
3.34 (1.57)
.67 (.19)
.25 (.14)
.08 (.11)
.73 (.18)
5.75 (1.37)
3.63 (1.50)
.54 (.24)
.30 (.20)
.16 (.19)
.64 (.25)
5.83 (0.86)
2.95 (1.79)
.33 (.12)
.43 (.22)
.24 (.22)
.43 (.20)
4.79 (1.25)
1.96 (0.94)
Co ec esponses. In he p opo ion o co ec ecall he con en s
ac o , F(1, 33) = 41.62, p < .001, 𝜂𝑝
2=.56, and he con en s x in o ma ion
modali y in e ac ion, F(1, 33) = 36.78, p < .001, 𝜂𝑝
2=. 53, we e signi ican .
The e was a g ea e p opo ion o co ec esponses in ecall o ac ion- ela ed
i ems (M = .59) han o de ails (M = .43). In addi ion, while he e we e no
268 E. Ga cía-Bajos, M. Migueles, A. Aizpu ua
signi ican di e ences in he co ec esponses be ween e bal ac ions and
e bal de ails in ecall (.51, .54; p > .05), he isual ac ions we e emembe ed
be e han he isual de ails (.67 > .33, p < .001). These esul s e lec how
di icul i is o ecall speci ic isual de ails. The ecall o isual ac ions may
ha e been enhanced by he p ocessing luency o he ac ions con ained in he
ideo as well as he pe cep ual i idness o he isual in o ma ion.
Commission e o s. Among he p opo ion o commission e o s in
ecall, he ac o s con en s, F(1, 33) = 17.68, p < .001, 𝜂𝑝
2=.35, and
in o ma ion modali y, F(1, 33) = 6.03, p = .02, 𝜂𝑝
2=.15, and he in e ac ion
con en s x in o ma ion modali y, F(1, 33) = 5.48, p = .025, 𝜂𝑝
2=.14, we e
signi ican . The e was a g ea e p opo ion o commission e o s in he ecall
o de ails (M = .36) han in he ecall o ac ions (M = .26) and in he isual
in o ma ion (M = .34) han in he e bal in o ma ion (M = .28). Fu he mo e,
while he e we e no signi ican di e ences be ween he p opo ion o
commission e o s o e bal and isual ac ions (.27, .25; p > .05), he e was
a g ea e p opo ion o commission e o s in he ecall o isual de ails han
in he ecall o e bal de ails (.43 > .30, p < .01). These esul s indica e mo e
pe cep ual memo y biases han concep ual e o s in he ecall o an e en
when speci ic ques ions a e used, pa icula ly in he case o isual de ails.
Unanswe ed ques ions. In ela ion o he p opo ion o unanswe ed
ques ions in ecall, he con en s ac o , F(1, 33) = 6.03; p = .02;
𝜂𝑝
2= .15, and he in e ac ion con en s x in o ma ion modali y, F(1, 33) =
17.18; p < .001; 𝜂𝑝
2= .34, we e signi ican . The pa icipan s le unanswe ed
a g ea e p opo ion o de ail ques ions (M = .20) han ac ion ques ions (M =
.15), showing hei di icul y o ecalling pe cep ual in o ma ion. And he
pa icipan s le unanswe ed a g ea e p opo ion o isual de ails ques ions
han isual ac ions ques ions (.24 > .08, p < .001), wi hou signi ican
di e ences be ween e bal ac ions and e bal de ails ques ions (.22, .16; p >
.05).
Accu acy. Wi h ega d o he accu acy in ecall, he ac o s con en s,
F(1, 33) = 28.79, p < .001, 𝜂𝑝
2=.47, and in o ma ion modali y, F(1, 33) =
4.29, p = .046, 𝜂𝑝
2=.12, and he in e ac ion con en s x in o ma ion modali y,
F(1, 33) = 7.66, p < .01, 𝜂𝑝
2=.19, we e signi ican . Accu acy was g ea e in
he ecall o ac ions (M = .69) han o de ails (M = .53) and in e bal (M =
.64) han in isual in o ma ion (M = .58). In addi ion, while he e was no
signi ican di e ence in accu acy be ween he ecall o e bal and isual
ac ions (.65, .73; p > .05), accu acy was g ea e o e bal han o isual
de ails (.64 > .43, p < .01). The accu acy o isual de ails in ecall (M = .43)
was no signi ican ly di e en (p > .05) om .50 andom a e, e lec ing he
Bias in e en ecall and ecogni ion
269
di icul y and ecall bias pa icipan s had when ecalling speci ic isual
de ails.
Con idence. Con idence in ecall was a ed on a scale o 0 (no ce ain y)
o 7 (absolu e ce ain y). The esul s a e shown on Table 1. In o de o analyse
he deg ee o con idence in ecall, a 2 ( esponse accu acy: co ec esponses,
commission e o s) x 2 (con en s: ac ions, de ails) x 2 (in o ma ion modali y:
e bal, isual) wi hin-pa icipan s ac o ial ANOVA was used. The pos hoc
compa isons o analysing signi ican in e ac ions we e pe o med using he
Bon e oni es .
The ac o s esponse accu acy, F(1, 23) = 206.99, p < .001, 𝜂𝑝
2=.90,
and con en s, F(1, 23) = 6.56, p = .017, 𝜂𝑝
2=.22, we e signi ican . Con idence
in ecall was g ea e in he co ec esponses (M = 5.25) han i was in he
commission e o s (M = 2.97) and in ac ions (M = 4.34) han in de ails (M =
3.88). The in e ac ions esponse accu acy x con en s, F(1, 23) = 15.04, p =
.001, 𝜂𝑝
2=.39, and con en s x in o ma ion modali y, F(1, 23) = 33.57, p <
.001, 𝜂𝑝
2=.59, we e also signi ican . In he co ec esponses he e we e no
di e ences in con idence be ween ac ions and de ails (5.20, 5.31; p > .05),
while in he commission e o s esponses con idence was signi ican ly
g ea e in ac ions han in de ails (3.48 > 2.45, p < .01). Fu he mo e, while
he e was no signi ican di e ence in con idence be ween e bal ac ions and
de ails (4.00, 4.49; p > .05), con idence was g ea e in isual ac ions han in
isual de ails (4.69 > 3.37, p < .001), illus a ing he di icul y pa icipan s
expe ienced when ecalling speci ic isual de ails.
Recogni ion. In o de o analyse he hi s, alse ala ms and accu acy in
he e bal and isual ac ions and de ails in he mo ie aile (Table 2), h ee
2 (con en s: ac ions, de ails) x 2 (in o ma ion modali y: e bal, isual) wi hin-
pa icipan s ac o ial ANOVAs we e used. The pos hoc compa isons o
analysing signi ican in e ac ions we e pe o med using he Bon e oni es .
Table 2. Mean p opo ion o hi s, alse ala ms and accu acy, and mean esponse
con idence (0-7) in he ecogni ion o a mo ie aile (SDs in pa en heses).
Con en s
Ac ions
De ails
In o ma ion
Ve bal
Visual
Ve bal
Visual
Recogni ion
Hi s
False ala ms
Accu acy
Recogni ion con idence
Hi s
False ala ms
.80 (.22)
.80 (.17)
.50 (.09)
5.15 (1.49)
5.75 (0.92)
.74 (.20)
.43 (.25)
.63 (.16)
5.75 (1.37)
4.26 (1.78)
.71 (.27)
.43 (.23)
.62 (.19)
5.70 (1.10)
4.05 (2.14)
.75 (.23)
.40 (.24)
.65 (.14)
5.40 (1.28)
3.62 (2.01)
276 E. Ga cía-Bajos, M. Migueles, A. Aizpu ua
como e dade as en la a ea de econocimien o, mien as que en la a ea de
ecue do los pa icipan es ue on más p opensos a esponde inco ec amen e
p egun as que implicaban de alles isuales. Es os esul ados e lejan
mecanismos di e en es implicados en el p ocesamien o y ges ión cogni i a
de la in o mación concep ual y pe cep ual de un e en o.
REFERENCES
Alba, J. W., & Hashe , L. (1983). Is memo y schema ic? Psychological Bulle in, 93, 203-
231. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.203
B aine d, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Gis is he g is : Fuzzy- ace heo y and he new
in ui ionism. De elopmen al Re iew, 10, 3-47. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(90)90003-M
Cabeza, R., G ady, C. L., Nybe g, L., McIn osh, A. R., Tul ing, E., Kapu , S., Jennings,
J.M., Houle, S., & C aik, F. I. (1997). Age- ela ed di e ences in neu al ac i i y du ing
memo y encoding and e ie al: A posi on emission omog aphy s udy. The Jou nal
o Neu oscience, 17, 391-400.
Cohen, G., & Conway, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Memo y in he eal wo ld (3 d Ed.). London:
Psychology P ess.
Dancke , S. L., & C aik, F. I. (2013). Does aging a ec ecall mo e han ecogni ion
memo y? Psychology and Aging, 28, 902-909. doi:10.1037/a0033263
Diana, R. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Rangana h, C. (2007). Imaging ecollec ion and amilia i y
in he medial empo al lobe: a h ee-componen model. T ends in Cogni i e Sciences,
11, 379-386. doi:10.1016/j. ics.2007.08.001
Dodson, C. S., & Schac e , D. L. (2001). “I I had said i I would ha e emembe ed i :”
Reducing alse memo ies wi h a dis inc i eness heu is ic. Psychonomic Bulle in &
Re iew, 8, 155-161. doi:10.3758/BF03196152
Dodson, C. S., & Schac e , D. L. (2002). Aging and s a egic e ie al p ocesses: Reducing
alse memo ies wi h a dis inc i eness heu is ic. Psychology and Aging, 17, 405-415.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.17.3.405
Doss, M. K., Blues one, M. R., & Gallo, D. A. (2016). Two mechanisms o cons uc i e
ecollec ion: Pe cep ual ecombina ion and concep ual luency. Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 42, 1747-1758. doi:
10.1037/xlm0000273
E ans, J. R., & Fishe , R. P. (2011). Eyewi ness memo y: Balancing he accu acy, p ecision
and quan i y o in o ma ion h ough me acogni i e moni o ing and con ol. Applied
Cogni i e Psychology, 25, 501-508. doi:10.1002/acp.1722
Faul, F., E d elde , E., Lang, A. G., & Buchne , A. (2007). G*POWER 3: A lexible
s a is ical powe analysis p og am o he social, beha io al, and biomedical sciences.
Beha io Resea ch Me hods, 39, 175-191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146.
Fö s e , J. (2012). GLOMOsys: The how and why o global and local p ocessing. Cu en
Di ec ions in Psychological Science, 21, 15-19. doi:10.1177/0963721411429454
Ga cía-Bajos, E., Migueles, M., & Aizpu ua, A. (2012). Bias o sc ip -d i en p ocessing on
eyewi ness memo y in young and olde adul s. Applied Cogni i e Psychology, 26,
737-745. doi:10.1002/acp.2854
Ga cía-Bajos, E., Migueles, M., & Aizpu ua, A. (2014). Concep ual and pe cep ual encoding
ins uc ions di e en ly a ec e en ecall. Cogni i e P ocessing, 15, 535-541.
doi:10.1007/s10339-014-0615-3
Bias in e en ecall and ecogni ion
277
Ga o -Ea on, R. J., Kensinge , E. A., & Schac e , D. L. (2007). The neu al co ela es o
concep ual and pe cep ual alse ecogni ion. Lea ning & Memo y, 14, 684-692.
doi:10.1101/lm.695707
Gong, L., Wang, J., Yang, X., Feng, L., Li, X., Gu, C., ... & Cheng, H. (2016). Dissocia ion
be ween concep ual and pe cep ual implici memo y: E idence om pa ien s wi h
on al and occipi al lobe lesions. F on ie s in Human Neu oscience, 9, 722.
doi.o g/10.3389/ nhum.2015.00722
Hopkins, R. H., & Edwa ds, R. E. (1972). P onuncia ion e ec s in ecogni ion memo y.
Jou nal o Ve bal Lea ning and Ve bal Beha io , 11, 534-537. doi:10.1016/S0022-
5371(72)80036-7
Is ael, L., & Schac e , D. L. (1997). Pic o ial encoding educes alse ecogni ion o seman ic
associa es. Psychonomic Bulle in & Re iew, 4, 577-581. doi:10.3758/BF03214352
Jacoby, L. L., To h, J. P., & Yonelinas, A. P. (1993). Sepa a ing conscious and unconscious
in luences o memo y: Measu ing ecollec ion. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology:
Gene al, 122, 139-154. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.2.139
Johnson, M. K., Hash oudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Sou ce moni o ing. Psychological
Bulle in, 114, 3-28. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reali y moni o ing. Psychological Re iew, 88, 67-85.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67
Lanska, M., Olds, J. M., & Wes e man, D. L. (2014). Fluency e ec s in ecogni ion memo y:
A e pe cep ual luency and concep ual luency in e changeable? Jou nal o
Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and Cogni ion, 40, 1-11.
doi:10.1037/a0034309
Lis , J. A. (1986). Age and schema ic di e ences in he eliabili y o eyewi ness es imony.
De elopmen al Psychology, 22, 50-57. doi: 0012I649/86/S00.75
Mandle , G. (1980). Recognizing he judgmen o p e ious occu ence. Psychological
Re iew, 87, 252-271. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.252
McB ide, D. M., & Doshe , B. A. (2002). A compa ison o conscious and au oma ic memo y
p ocesses o pic u e and wo d s imuli: A p ocess dissocia ion analysis.
Consciousness and Cogni ion, 11, 423-460. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00007-7
Migueles, M., & Ga cía-Bajos, E. (1999). Recall, ecogni ion, and con idence in eyewi ness
es imony. Applied Cogni i e Psychology, 13, 257-268. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
0720(199906)13:3%3C257::AID-ACP566%3E3.0.CO;2-7
Migueles, M., Ga cía‐Bajos, E., & Aizpu ua, A. (2016). Ini ial es ing does no necessa ily
a ec eyewi ness ecall assessed by speci ic ques ioning. Applied Cogni i e
Psychology, 30, 294-300. doi: 10.1002/acp.3205
Mille , M. B., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (1998). C ea ing alse memo ies o isual scenes.
Neu opsychologia, 36, 513-520. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00148-6
Mi andola, C., To alini, E., G assano, M., Co noldi, C., & Melinde , A. (2014). In e en ial
alse memo ies o e en s: Nega i e consequences p o ec om dis o ions when he
e en s a e ee om u he elabo a ion. Memo y, 22, 451-461.
doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.795976
Mi chell, K. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2009). Sou ce moni o ing 15 yea s la e : Wha ha e we
lea ned om MRI abou he neu al mechanisms o sou ce memo y? Psychological
Bulle in, 135, 638-677. doi:10.1037/a0015849
Neisse , U. (1967). Cogni i e psychology. New Yo k, NY: Apple on-Cen u y-C o s.
Ozubko, J.D., Gopie, N., & MacLeod, C.M. (2012). P oduc ion bene i s bo h ecollec ion
and amilia i y. Memo y & Cogni ion, 40, 326-338. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0165-1
278 E. Ga cía-Bajos, M. Migueles, A. Aizpu ua
Reini z, M. T., Séguin, J. A., Pe ia, W., & Lo us, G. R. (2012). Con idence-accu acy
ela ions o aces and scenes: Roles o ea u es and amilia i y. Psychonomic Bulle in
& Re iew, 19, 1085-1093. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0308-9
Roedige , H. L., & McDe mo , K. B. (1995). C ea ing alse memo ies: Remembe ing wo ds
no p esen ed in lis s. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Lea ning, Memo y, and
Cogni ion, 21, 803-814. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
Rubin, D. C. (2006). The basic-sys ems model o episodic memo y. Pe spec i es on
Psychological Science, 1, 277-311. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00017.x
Sadeh, T., Ma il, A., & Goshen-Go s ein, Y. (2012). Encoding- ela ed b ain ac i i y
dissocia es be ween he ecollec i e p ocesses unde lying success ul ecall and
ecogni ion: A subsequen -memo y s udy. Neu opsychologia, 50, 2317-2324.
doi:10.1016/j.neu opsychologia.2012.05.035
Schac e , D. L., Gue in, S. A., & S . Jacques, P. L. (2011). Memo y dis o ion: An adap i e
pe spec i e. T ends in Cogni i e Sciences, 15, 467-474.
doi:10.1016/j. ics.2011.08.004
Schac e , D. L., Is ael, L., & Racine, C. (1999). Supp essing alse ecogni ion in younge
and olde adul s: The dis inc i eness heu is ic. Jou nal o Memo y and Language, 40,
1-24. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2611
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Sc ip s, plans, goals, and unde s anding. Hillsdale,
NJ: Law ence E lbaum.
Scobo ia, A., Tala ico, J. M., & Pascal, L. (2015). Me amemo y app aisals in
au obiog aphical e en ecall. Cogni ion, 136, 337-349.
doi:10.1016/j.cogni ion.2014.11.028
Slamecka, N. J., & G a , P. (1978). The gene a ion e ec : Delinea ion o a phenomenon.
Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Human Lea ning and Memo y, 4, 592-604.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
Slo nick, S. D., & Schac e , D. L. (2004). A senso y signa u e ha dis inguishes ue om
alse memo ies. Na u e Neu oscience, 7, 664-672. doi:10.1038/nn1252
Smi h, R. E., & Engle, R. W. (2011). S udy modali y and alse ecall. Expe imen al
Psychology, 58, 117-124. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000076
Smi h, R. E., & Hun , R. R. (1998). P esen a ion modali y a ec s alse memo y.
Psychonomic Bulle in & Re iew, 5, 710-715. doi:10.3758/BF03208850
S o beck, J. (2013). Nega i e a ec p omo es encoding o and memo y o de ails a he
expense o he gis : A ec , encoding, and alse memo ies. Cogni ion & Emo ion, 27,
800-819. doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.741060
Tul ing, E. (1982). Syne gis ic ecpho y in ecall and ecogni ion. Canadian Jou nal o
Psychology, 36, 130-147. doi:10.1037/h0080641
Whi lesea, B.W.A., & Leboe, J.P. (2000). The heu is ic basis o emembe ing and
classi ica ion: Fluency, gene a ion, and esemblance. Jou nal o Expe imen al
Psychology: Gene al, 129, 84-106. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.84
Woolnough, P. S., & MacLeod, M. D. (2001).Wa ching he bi die wa ching you: Eyewi ness
memo y o ac ions using CCTV eco dings o ac ual c imes. Applied Cogni i e
Psychology, 15, 395-411. doi:10.1002/acp.717
Za agoza, M. S., Mi chell, K. J., Paymen , K., & D i dahl, S. (2011). False memo ies o
sugges ions: The impac o concep ual elabo a ion. Jou nal o Memo y and
Language, 64, 18-31. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.09.004
(Manusc ip ecei ed: 27 Oc obe 2017; accep ed: 2 May 2018)
