Not enough familiarity for fluency: Definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition

被引:0
|
作者
Marianne E. Lloyd
Ashley Hartman
Chi T. Ngo
Nicole Ruser
Deanne L. Westerman
Jeremy K. Miller
机构
[1] Seton Hall University,Department of Psychology
[2] Temple University,Department of Psychology
[3] SUNY Binghamton,Department of Psychology
[4] Willamette University,Department of Psychology
来源
Memory & Cognition | 2015年 / 43卷
关键词
Familiarity; Recognition memory; Heuristics; Fluency;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Five experiments were conducted to test whether encoding manipulations thought to encourage unitization would affect fluency attribution in associative recognition memory. Experiments 1a and 1b, which utilized a speeded recognition memory test, demonstrated that definitional encoding increased reliance on familiarity during the recognition memory test. Experiments 2a, 2b, and 3, however, replicated previous research that had shown that fluency is unlikely to be attributed as evidence of previous occurrence in associative recognition (Westerman, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27:723–732, 2001). The results put limits on the degree to which fluency can influence recognition memory judgments, even in cases of enhanced familiarity, and are consistent with previous work suggesting that participants have preexperimental expectations about fluency that are difficult to change (e.g., Miller, Lloyd, & Westerman, Journal of Memory and Language 58:1080–1094, 2008), as well as with work suggesting that fluency has less of an influence on recognition memory decisions that are conceptual in nature (Parks, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39:1280–1286, 2013).
引用
收藏
页码:39 / 48
页数:9
相关论文
共 15 条
  • [1] Not enough familiarity for fluency: Definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition
    Lloyd, Marianne E.
    Hartman, Ashley
    Ngo, Chi T.
    Ruser, Nicole
    Westerman, Deanne L.
    Miller, Jeremy K.
    [J]. MEMORY & COGNITION, 2015, 43 (01) : 39 - 48
  • [2] Global matching and fluency attribution in familiarity assessment
    Yang, Haopei
    Kohler, Stefan
    [J]. BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 2019, 42
  • [3] Distinguishing familiarity from fluency for the compound word pair effect in associative recognition
    Ahmad, Fahad N.
    Hockley, William E.
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 70 (09): : 1768 - 1791
  • [4] Neural correlates of familiarity and conceptual fluency are dissociable at encoding
    Hou, Mingzhu
    Gao, Chuanji
    Wu, Jun
    Guo, Chunyan
    [J]. CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN, 2014, 59 (28): : 3602 - 3609
  • [5] Neural correlates of familiarity and conceptual fluency are dissociable at encoding
    Mingzhu Hou
    Chuanji Gao
    Jun Wu
    Chunyan Guo
    [J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2014, 59 (28) : 3602 - 3609
  • [6] Perceptual fluency, semantic familiarity and recognition-related familiarity: an electrophysiological exploration
    Nessler, D
    Mecklinger, A
    Penney, TB
    [J]. COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH, 2005, 22 (02): : 265 - 288
  • [7] The effect of fluency strategy training on interpreter trainees? speech fluency: Does content familiarity matter?
    Yenkimaleki, Mahmood
    van Heuven, Vincent J.
    Hosseini, Mostafa
    [J]. SPEECH COMMUNICATION, 2023, 146 (1-10) : 1 - 10
  • [8] The disruptive effects of processing fluency on familiarity-based recognition in amnesia
    Ozubko, Jason D.
    Yonelinas, Andrew P.
    [J]. NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2014, 54 : 59 - 67
  • [9] The contribution of processing fluency to preference: A comparison with familiarity-based recognition
    Willems, Sylvie
    van der Linden, Martial
    Bastin, Christine
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 19 (01): : 119 - 140
  • [10] False fame, perceptual clarity, or persuasion? Flexible fluency attribution in spokesperson familiarity effects
    Weisbuch, Max
    Mackie, Diane
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 19 (01) : 62 - 72