Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHayne, Harlene
dc.contributor.advisorStrange, Deryn
dc.contributor.authorJenkin, Thomas
dc.date.available2012-10-04T21:10:10Z
dc.date.copyright2012
dc.identifier.citationJenkin, T. (2012). Individual Differences In Intersensory Integration And Inhibition Do Not Predict Performance on The DRM Paradigm (Thesis, Master of Science). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/2474en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/2474
dc.description.abstractFalse memory research is a highly controversial area, particularly in the practical arenas of eyewitness testimony and memories recovered in therapy, where cases of murder and historic abuse have been overturned due to testimony being deemed inaccurate due to the influence of false memories (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005). Thus much of the academic focus on false memories has been slanted toward the practical issues such as: the authenticity of, and situational factors that cause, false memories. However, in order to fully understand the phenomenon, there is a strong need to develop robust theoretical explanations for false memory. The purpose of the present experiment was to examine whether individual differences in susceptibility to false memories could be explained, in part, by individualdifferences in intersensory integration, or inhibition. To address this question we compared participants’ performance in a false memory task -the DRM paradigm- and their performance on two audio-visual illusion tasks -the McGurk and the Illusory Flash Effect task-, and their performance on the Stroop Inhibition task. In the DRM task, participants were presented with lists ofwords, which were all related to one critical lure word. The frequency with which participants subsequently recalled or recognised the non-presented critical lure was sed as a measure of false memory. In the McGurk task participants were asked to report what they heard while watchinga mouth speak nonsense syllables; on inconsistent trails, the spoken syllable differed from the audio syllable. In the Illusory Flash Effect task participants watched a white circle flash a computer screen; circle flashes were accompanied by audio beeps, on inconsistent trials there was on circle flash and two beeps. In the Stroop Inhibition task participants were asked to read the font colour of a list of words out loud; on inconsistent trials the font colour was different from the colour word. Overall, there were no correlations between participants’ false reports of critical lures in the DRM task, and their responses on inconsistent trials of the McGurk or Illusory Flash Effect tasks. There was also no correlation between participants’ false reports of critical lures and the difference in time between responses on consistent and inconsistent trials of the Stroop Inhibition task. On the basis of these data, I conclude that individual performance in the DRM task is not predicted by individual differences in performance on measures of intersensory integration, or inhibition.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Otago
dc.rightsAll items in OUR Archive are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
dc.subjectFalse
dc.subjectMemory
dc.subjectIntersensory
dc.subjectIntegration
dc.subjectStroop
dc.subjectinhibition
dc.titleIndividual Differences In Intersensory Integration And Inhibition Do Not Predict Performance on The DRM Paradigm
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.updated2012-10-04T19:54:06Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychology
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Science
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Otago
thesis.degree.levelMasters
otago.openaccessOpen
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record