09:00 - 10:30
Parallel sessions 4
09:00 - 10:30
Room: HSZ - N5
Chair/s:
Désirée Schönung, Nikoletta Symeonidou
Source memory research aims at understanding how people remember the origin of information (e.g., Where did I read the latest news?). This double symposium brings together findings from both basic (Part 1) and more applied (Part 2) source memory research. The first session highlights new developments in modeling approaches as well as empirical work addressing fundamental determinants of source memory.
Beatrice G. Kuhlmann opens the session with “A Storage-Retrieval Extension of the Two-High-Threshold Multinomial Model of Source Monitoring.”, introducing an extended version of the often-used two-high-threshold multinomial model of source monitoring (2HTSM, Bayen et al., 1996). This extended version distinguishes between storage and retrieval components of source memory by incorporating two separate source-memory parameters.
Meike Kroneisen follows with “The Rare and the Common: Can Rarity Influence the Animacy Effect in Source Memory?”, investigating whether the animacy advantage in source memory depends on the relative frequency of animate and inanimate stimuli. Her talk provides insights into how base-rate expectations and attention shape encoding and retrieval.
In “Source Memory and Metamemory for Concrete and Abstract Words,” Désirée Schönung examines how people monitor their memory for different word types. The talk focuses on whether individuals distinguish between item and source memory in their metamemory judgments by recognizing that concreteness affects item but not source memory.
Further advancing model-related aspects, Hilal Tanyas presents in her talk “Modeling Latency Processes in Source Monitoring” a formal modeling approach that integrates response times to the 2HTSM. This allows estimating the relative speed of memory- and guessing-based processes.
Finally, Lena Nadarevic bridges to more applied questions of source memory in her talk “Source Effects in Memory for Truth and Falsity: A Comparison of Self-Generated Judgments and External Feedback”. Across two experiments, she investigates whether participants remember self-generated subjective truth judgments better than externally provided objective feedback, consistent with the generation effect.
Together, these talks illustrate the range of current approaches to studying source memory, advancing theoretical and methodological understanding of source memory processes. The first session concludes with a general discussion, leading over to Part II: Source Memory - Applied Research.
Submission 170
Source Effects in Memory for Truth and Falsity: A Comparison of Self-Generated Judgments and External Feedback
SymposiumTalk-05
Presented by: Lena Nadarevic
Lena Nadarevic
Charlotte Fresenius Hochschule, Germany
Correcting misinformation is one of the key challenges of our time. However, debunking interventions show only limited success. Memory processes may contribute to this problem; for instance, people may be better at remembering their initial, subjective assessment of the veracity of information than they are at remembering externally provided, objective veracity feedback. Indeed, research on the generation effect suggests that self-generated information benefits from deeper processing and is therefore remembered particularly well. However, there is little research on whether this effect also applies to the generation of source or veracity information. To address this question, participants studied individual statements, some of which were presented together with “true” or “false” feedback in the feedback group, or judged as “true” or “false” in the judgment group. Data from a subsequent memory test were analyzed using a multinomial source memory model to disentangle memory for the statements, memory for the (judged) veracity of the statements, and different guessing processes. The analyses indicated a generation effect for both the statements and their (judged) veracity. Hence, as predicted, participants show better memory for their own veracity judgments than for external veracity feedback. Future research will investigate whether this also applies when self-generated judgments are combined with external feedback in a within-subject design.