Laney

Aim 1: Does false feedback lead to false memory?

Aim 2: Underlying mechanism of false memory implantation

Sample:
Exp.1
182 undergrad, Uni.Cali
Exp.2
103 undergrad, Uni. Washington

Both majority females, 77% and 62%

In exp.1, 30 results were excluded because pps liked asparagus
Course credit = motivation for participation

Procedures:
Exp.1
1. Groups of 8 participants come to the lab
2. Deceived that they are being experimented on food preferences
3. Complete FHI and RQ
4. Complete 3 filler questionnaires --> Hide true aim, reduce demand
characteristics and social d. bias
1 week later
1. Pps allcoated to love/control through randomisation (researcher bias)
2. "Computer based report" (For higher credibility) about childhood. "You loved to
eat cooked asparagus"
3. Participants were asked questions on the report to make sure they processed all
info.
4. FHI, RQ, Food preference, FOod cost, and Memory/Belief questionnaires
Debrief

Exp.2 (Investigate underlying mechanism)

1. FHI, RQ, Food preference Questionnaires
2. 2 more questionnaires
1 week later
1. Love and control group
2. Computer based reports "You loved asparagus as a child" for love group
3. Love group complete task on experience with asparagus. Imagine what might have
happened, age at the
time of event, lovation, who was with them, how it made them feel, etc.
4. Both groups provide their most important childhood experience related to food
that the profile did not
report.
5. Slide show, 20 photos 30s each, all coloured
Rate from 1 to 8
Photo quality
How disgusting the food looks
How appetiting the food is
6. Complete FHI, RQ, and FPQ
7. Full debrief
ㄴ--> False memory may stay. Element of deception, but not traumatic so not
too bad. Healthy!

Questionnaires
FPQ - 62 item, rate their food preference (how much they like to eat the food)
Critical item --> Asparagus
FHI - 24 items, rate the history with the food --> how sure the event happened 1~8
Critical item --> Loved asparagus the first time you tried it
RQ - 32 dishes on a realistic menu 5 course, rate how likely they are going to
order the food. No price.
Critical item --> Sauteed asparagus spears
FCQ - 21 food items, select how much they would pay for the item. 1.90 to 5.70 USD
Critical item --> Pound of asparagus
M/B - 3 items on the FHI; whether there is a place and time linked (memory), just
the fact (belief), or
it didn't happen
Critical item --> Asparagus

Results
FHI
Exp.1 Exp.2
Love group 1.5 --> 4.1 Love group 1.7 --> 4.2
Control group 1.5 --> 1.7 Control group 1.7 --> 2.5

M/B
Exp. 1 Exp.2
memory Belief None Memory Belief
None
Love 22% 34% 44% Love 28% 27% 45%
Control 12% 27% 61% Control 6% 38% 56%

RQ
Neither ratings changed significantly.

Photograph rating
Believers --> Asparagus is more appetising! 5.1 vs 4.0
ㄴ> Less disgusting! 1.8 vs 3.2

ISSUES AND DEBATES

Ind vs Sit.
Situational! If individual differences supported, despite love and control group,
the results would be
the same. However, those who were put in the same situation responded in a similar
manner. Love group came
to love asparagus, those in control group were the same.

Nature vs Nurture
Nurture! Minds and cognitions were nurtured to love asparagus. --> Turned out to
love asparagus.

MECHANISM
False feedback PRIMES the pps to process the critical item. More exposure, more
fluency with processing
information regarding asparagus. Pps interpret the fluency as familiarity, and
misattribute it to
childhood experience and adult preference.

Limitations
Sample bias --> females may select healthier options
Answers on questionnaires do not fully translate to behaviour. Ecological validity
is low! Note, the RQ
tried to raise eco. validity tho.
Questionnaires were completed a few minutes after the false memory. + No follow up.
Don't know how long
these false memories will last.
Ethics --> Deception
Strengths
Lab exp --> High control --> High int. validity
Standardised steps --> Repeatable --> reliable results
Questionnaire to operationalise (measure) DV (love for asparagus). Quantitative
data --> Easy to compare,
analyse, etc.

Cognitive approach
Looks at how our mental processes affect behaviour. Ignores genetic factors -->
reductionist.
Mechanistic, because this approach suggests that if we receive an input, we will
all send out the same
output (behaviour). However, we don't. Everybody is genetically different.