Memory ISSN: 0965-8211 (Print) 1464-0686 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20 Factors that influence the generation of autobiographical memory conjunction errors Aleea L. Devitt, Edwin Monk-Fromont, Daniel L. Schacter & Donna Rose Addis To cite this article: Aleea L. Devitt, Edwin Monk-Fromont, Daniel L. Schacter & Donna Rose Addis (2016) Factors that influence the generation of autobiographical memory conjunction errors, Memory, 24:2, 204-222, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2014.998680 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.998680 Published online: 22 Jan 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 221 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pmem20 Download by: [Harvard Library] Date: 10 May 2016, At: 08:06 Memory, 2016 Vol. 24, No. 2, 204–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.998680 Factors that influence the generation of autobiographical memory conjunction errors Aleea L. Devitt1, Edwin Monk-Fromont1, Daniel L. Schacter2, and Donna Rose Addis1 1School of Psychology and Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand 2Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA (Received 14 September 2014; accepted 10 December 2014) The constructive nature of memory is generally adaptive, allowing us to efficiently store, process and learn from life events, and simulate future scenarios to prepare ourselves for what may come. However, the cost of a flexibly constructive memory system is the occasional conjunction error, whereby the components of an event are authentic, but the combination of those components is false. Using a novel recombination paradigm, it was demonstrated that details from one autobiographical memory (AM) may be incorrectly incorporated into another, forming AM conjunction errors that elude typical reality monitoring checks. The factors that contribute to the creation of these conjunction errors were examined across two experiments. Conjunction errors were more likely to occur when the corresponding details were partially rather than fully recombined, likely due to increased plausibility and ease of simulation of partially recombined scenarios. Brief periods of imagination increased conjunction error rates, in line with the imagination inflation effect. Subjective ratings suggest that this inflation is due to similarity of phenomenological experience between conjunction and authentic memories, consistent with a source monitoring perspective. Moreover, objective scoring of memory content indicates that increased perceptual detail may be particularly important for the formation of AM conjunction errors. Keywords: Autobiographical memory; False memory; Memory conjunction error; Imagination; Phenomenology. Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 08:06 10 May 2016 Autobiographical memory (AM) serves as a per- to be mostly advantageous (Schacter, Guerin, & sonal, richly detailed and usually accurate record St. Jacques, 2011), in that it allows us to recombine of the past. For any one past event we frequently details to imagine the future (Schacter & Addis, can remember the people involved, the location 2007), creatively solve problems (Howe, Garner, at which it occurred, our thoughts and emotions Charlesworth, & Knott, 2011) and update memor- as well as the happenings that unfolded. It has ies with recently acquired information (Lee, 2009; long been recognised that such episodic memory St. Jacques, Olm, & Schacter, 2013). However, representations are stored as constituent features there are some downsides to this constructive, that, upon retrieval, need to be relocated, reacti- flexible set-up, in that it renders us vulnerable vated and reintegrated (Bartlett, 1932; Schacter, to memory distortions and errors. For instance, Norman, & Koutstaal, 1998). Having a construct- details from two or more separate memories ive and flexible episodic memory system is thought can occasionally be erroneously integrated, and Address correspondence to: Aleea Devitt, School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORY CONJUNCTION ERRORS 205 if this is endorsed by the rememberer as a veri- were judged as “remembered” as opposed to dical memory, a memory conjunction error is “known”, suggesting they were experienced as said to have occurred (Reinitz, Lammers, & phenomenologically real. Burt, Kemp, and Con- Cochran, 1992). way (2004) used a similar paradigm, albeit drawing Memory conjunction errors have been reported on diaries that had been completed approximately to occur for a range of stimuli, including word 13 years earlier. Person, place and activity details syllables (e.g., barter + valley = barley; Kroll, were recombined between diary entries, with Knight, Metcalfe, Wolf, & Tulving, 1996), com- either one, two or three of the details altered, and pound words (e.g., snowball + sandman = snow- incorporated into short event descriptions. Parti- man; Jones & Jacoby, 2001), sentences (Reinitz cipants rated the event descriptions on a 9-point et al., 1992), line drawings of faces (Reinitz, memory scale (with anything above a 4 judged as Morrissey, & Demb, 1994) and photographs of remembered to some degree), and also estimated faces (Jones & Bartlett, 2009). Exploring memory the date of the event. It was found that participants conjunction errors has helped to illuminate the at least partially misremembered around six con- cognitive mechanisms underlying the episodic junction lures.2 Location-altered lures were most memory system, such as feature binding and how likely to be falsely remembered, and lures with these mechanisms are modulated by attentional three details altered were least likely to be given a processes (Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Reinitz, 2001; rating of 1 (i.e., identified as never having hap- Reinitz & Hannigan, 2001; Reinitz et al., 1994). pened). Participants reported using landmark Furthermore, memory conjunction errors have events and reconstructive strategies to help date been shown to be a highly compelling type of the conjunction events, indicating that complex memory distortion, experienced with a sense of evaluative processes may be recruited when mak- recollection (Reinitz, 2001; Reinitz et al., 1992, ing source decisions for the recombined events. 1994), which may in part be due to their pheno- Together, these two studies demonstrate that menological similarity to veridical memories memory conjunction errors in AM can be elicited (Johnson, Foley, Suengas, & Raye, 1988; Johnson, in the laboratory environment. Moreover, their Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993). Extending this results suggest that the specific detail altered and research on memory conjunction errors into the the number of memories from which a conjunction autobiographical domain should be highly valu- event draws from can influence the rates of accept- able for elucidating cognitive mechanisms of AM ance of AM conjunction lures. However, the construction and authentication. However, AM literature on false memories for entirely fabricated conjunction errors have thus far received little events suggests that factors such as plausibility empirical attention. (Mazzoni, 2007; Mazzoni, Loftus, & Kirsch, 2001; To our knowledge, only two studies have Pezdek, Blandon-Gitlin, & Gabbay, 2006; Sco- explored conjunction errors in AM, and both boria, Mazzoni, Kirsch, & Relyea, 2004), imagina- Downloaded by [Harvard Library] at 08:06 10 May 2016 used a similar technique involving individual diary tion (Garry & Polaschek, 2000; Garry & Wade, records. In one study, Odegard and Lampinen 2005; Goff & Roediger, 1998; Mazzoni & Memon, (2004) had participants complete a diary over a 2003; Nash, Wade, & Lindsay, 2009), processing number of weeks, describing one event that fluency (Garry & Wade, 2005; Sharman, Garry, & happened every few days and recording major Beuke, 2004; Sharman, Manning, & Garry, 2005) event details, including people, locations, emo- and the sensory and emotional detail comprising tions, actions and objects. Following completion of an event (Heaps & Nash, 2001; Thomas, Bule- the diary, and unbeknownst to the participant, vich, & Loftus, 2003; Von Glahn, Otani, Migita, some of the details in the event descriptions were Langford, & Hillard, 2012)couldalsohave recombined across events to form a number of marked effects on the acceptance of AM conjunc- conjunction lures. In a subsequent recognition test tion errors. six weeks later, on average 1.5 conjunction lures The two studies reported here further our were falsely accepted as belonging to the original understanding of the nature of AM conjunction event1. The majority of these conjunction lures errors by exploring the role that imagination and 1 In the original paper, it was reported that 15.3% of a total 2 In the original paper, it was reported that 13.2% of a total of 190 lures were accepted. Given there were 19 participants, of 491 lures were accepted. Given there were 11 participants, this equates to an average of 1.5 conjunction errors per this equates to an average of 5.9 conjunction errors per person. person. 206 DEVITT ET AL. phenomenological qualities play in the formation AM conjunction errors should illuminate some of this type of memory distortion. We developed a of the underlying processes by which these errors novel