The Kinds of Gist Features as Cues Have Different Influences on False Memory among Different Levels of Disciplinary Domain Knowledge Students
Abstract: In this present study, the DRM paradigm was applied to two experiments to investigate how gist features were affecting false memory among the students with high and low levels of disciplinary domain knowledge. In experiment 1, we presented a list of chemical nouns that appears in Chinese terms and examined the effects of common gist features (prompting all the chemical terms contained with oxygen elements) of the chemical terms memory materials on false memory between high and low levels of disciplinary domain knowledge. In experiment 2, we investigated how the non-common gist features (prompting the chemical ex- pressions corresponded with chemical terms memory materials) influenced false memory between two groups. The result showed, 1) Presenting common gist features to subjects increased their false memory while the non-common ones reduced the emergency of false memory. 2) When common gist features were provided, subjects with high level of disciplinary domain knowledge had significantly less false alarm rates and shorter reaction time on critical lures than those with lower level. 3) Hit rates for targets of high and low level groups had significant differences under the two conditions. However, there were inconspicuous differences when compared the variation of hit rates under two gist features conditions while the variation of false alarm rates of critical lures was in the contrary. The result indicated that heightening the clarity of gist feature helps to reduce false memory and it is affected by the levels of disciplinary domain knowledge. For the true and false memory of specific disciplinary domain knowledge, there may be two different forms of representations: True memory activates the semantic information via phonological information in order to bring about the information gai- ning fluency, representing both phonological and semantic information, and is easily affected by the subjects’ levels of disciplinary domain knowledge, while false memory is the direct gaining fluency of semantic in- formation and is easily affected by the clarity of visual cues.
文章引用: 蔡笑岳 , 张维 , 张晓文 (2011) 要义提示类型对不同学科领域知识水平中学生 错误记忆的影响。 心理学进展， 1， 119-126. doi: 10.12677/ap.2011.13018
 蔡笑岳, 何伯锋(2010). 学科领域知识的研究与教学——当代领域知识研究及其教学迁移[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2期, 43-51.
 姜子云, 邓铸(2008). 问题表征过程中信息提取的实验研究[J]. 心理科学, 3期, 620-624.
 刘泽文，郭谦，葛列众(2010). 两种视觉特征提示对儿童错误记忆发展的影响[J]. 心理学报, 3期, 406-414.
 毛伟宾，杨治良，王松林，袁建伟(2008). 非熟练中—英双语者跨语言的错误记忆通道效应[J]. 心理学报, 3期, 274- 282.
 曲折，丁玉珑(2010). 汉字语音关联对错误记忆的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2期, 193-199.
 张维，蔡笑岳，曾苑霞(2011). 学科领域知识丰富性对中学代数问题表征层次的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2期, 398-401.
 Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). Fuzzy-trace theory and chil- dren’s false memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 81-129.
 Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Forrest, T. J. (2002). Are young chil- dren susceptible to the false-memory illusion? Child Development, 5, 1363-1377.
 Brainerd, C. J., Wright, R., & Reyna, V. F. (2002). Dual-retrieval pro- cesses in free and associative recall. Journal of Memory and Lan- guage, 46, 120-152.
 Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2004). Fuzzy-trace theory and memory development. Developmental Review, 24, 396-439.
 Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge is power hypothesis. Cognitive Psy- chology, 4, 339-387.
 Lyle, K. B., & Johnson, M. K. (2006). Importing perceived features into false memories. Memory, 2, 197-213.
 Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: the impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1686- 1706.
 Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2000). The effects of a level-of- processing manipulation on false recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Re- view, 1, 158-162.
 Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 4, 803-814.
 Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: The ghosts of past and future. Nature, 4, 27.
 Sloutsky, V. M., & Yarlas, A. S. (2000). Problem representation in experts and novices: Underlying processing mechanism. In: Gleit- man, L. R., & Joshi, A. K. Eds. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Con- ference of the Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum, Mahwah, 475-488.
 Thapar, A., & McDermott, K. B. (2001). False recall and false recog- nition induced by presentation of associated words: Effects of reten- tion interval and level of processing. Memory & Cognition, 3, 424- 432.
 Watson, J. M., Bunting, M. F., Poole, B. J., & Conway, A. R. (2005). Individual differences in susceptibility to false memory in the Deese- Roediger-McDermott paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psycholo- gy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1, 76-85.