In cognitive psychology, the Activation/ Monitoring Theory (AMT) and the Fuzzy Trace Theory (FTT) are framework’s which account for the false memory findings in the DRM paradigm. Roediger & McDermott (1995) define false memories as “… either remembering events that never happened, or remembering them quite differently from the way they happened… ”. The Activation Monitoring Theory is a well used theoretical explanation of the DRM paradigm.
According to Roediger et al, 2001 (as cited in Sergi, Senese, Pisani & Nigro, 2004) the AMT suggests that false memories are due to a combination of two processes: these include spreading activation and a controlled monitoring process. Another theory that can account for the DRM paradigm is the Fuzzy Trace Theory. The FTT believes that participants encode information via two processes; known as verbatim and gist (Roediger et al, 2001, as cited in Sergi, Senese, Pisani & Nigro, 2004).
These two theories (AMT and FTT) consist of two main similarities and differences: they share commonality in being a two process theory, although consists of different monitoring processes; they also share the idea that a memory representation relates to critical items during encoding; finally, the findings addressed by the AMT and FTT in relation to the DRM paradigm shall analysed for similarities and differences. Many cognitive psychologists have argued for the AMT to account for false memories/ recognition in the DRM paradigm.
Research into the AMT and FTT, has noticed that both these theories share a commonality in being a two process theory. In a recent study, Cann, McRae & Katz (2011) conducted an experiment on theories of false memories, specifically focusing on the DRM paradigm. Cann et al, (2011) noted that the AMT consists of: “two processes – activation and monitoring”. These two processes make up the AMT. Similarly to that of the AMT, the FTT is also a two process theory. The FTT involves two types of memory traces known as: verbatim trace and a gist trace.
Numerous studies have examined the AMT and FTT; of which, none have disproved that both theories consist of two processes. In fact, in the AMT, Arndt (2010) stated: “although activation is the primary process… activation alone is insufficient to explain why people behave as if lures were experienced in a particular encoding context. “ Each process within the AMT and FTT are vital in explaining how the different theories work in relation to false memories and the DRM paradigm.
Despite both frameworks of the DRM paradigm sharing a ommonality in regards to a two process theory, they consist of different types of monitoring processes / assumptions. As briefly discussed earlier, the AMT consists of two critical sets of processes: the activation process and the monitoring process. In reviewing the literature, it was found that even though there is a natural association between activation to encoding and monitoring to retrieval; potentially both processes (activation and monitoring) can take place during encoding as well as retrieval (Roediger, Watson, McDermott & Gallo, 2001).
In addition, Roediger, et al (2001) explains that by studying words connected to the lure; this connection activates the lures representation within semantic memory. As a consequence, on a subsequent memory test; participants have a greater probability of attributing errors to that lure. Although a key mechanism in the AMT is activation to encoding, the theory also focuses upon retrieval processes. Johnson & Raye, (1981) defined a process called reality monitoring; this is where the primary goal is to be able to distinguish between information bought to consciousness, that may be a perception of past events, from that which does not.
For instance an example of this would be a participant thinking: “Did I hear sleep, or does it seem familiar for some other reason” (Roediger & McDermott, 2000, p. 126). (CONCLUDING SENTANCE? ) In contrast, the FTT consists of two entirely different processes known as: verbatim traces and gist traces. However, unlike the AMT, the FTT can be broken down into four principles. Brainerd & Reyna (1998) list these four principles as: “parallel verbatim – gist storage; dissociated verbatim – gist retrieval; explicit recollection; and identity, non-identity and similarity processes “(p. ).
It is thought that the FTT incorporates additional detailed principles in relation to processes; and is wider in scope compared to the AMT (Steffens & Mecklenbrauker, 2007). It is assumed that retrieval of both verbatim and gist traces create a foundation for memory performances within the FTT. In relation to the prior assumption, both memory traces have opposite effects on false memory; however seem to support true memories (Sergi et al. , 2004).
On the other hand, according to Hicks & Hancock, (2002) it is thought that due to the strong match between critical items and the semantic or thematic gist of list items, false memories in the DRM paradigm occur. In addition, Hicks et al. , (2002) expressed that the FTT was poor in specifying how the critical item comes to contain memorial details that more representative of verbatim traces. Further research indicates that those who have studied the FTT have become more attentive on a principle known as the ‘phantom recollection’.
Brainerd & Reyna, (2002) elaborates further on the FTT and false memory, and briefly describes ‘phantom recollection’ as an:”illusory vivid mental reinstatement of events’ “occurring””. It is believed that high levels of phantom recollection predict certain false memories (Brainerd et al. 2002). ( Concluding sentence? ) Another similarity that these two approaches have is the notion that a memory representation comparable to that of the critical item; is stored during encoding (Sergi et al. 2004).
In support of this notion, Hicks et al. , (as cited in Sergi et al. , 2004) found that during encoding the critical item representation is indirectly activated by the study words affiliated with the critical item; this concept then becomes assimilated into the episodic memory trace. Furthermore , numerous psychologists have admitted that throughout encoding, critical items from DRM lists are activated in an associative network (Hicks et al, 2004).
