The Impact of Spatial Locations Involving Schema Representations on False Memories

The Impact of Spatial Locations Involving Schema Representations on False Memories

Ji Yun Gan

While numerous studies have investigated the effects of schema on false memories, few have looked at how schematic framework involving spatial locations have influenced levels of true and false memories in different age groups. For this study, two separate analyses were conducted; both analyses required participants to study four environment scenes, which contained schema- consistent objects that were placed in either schema-expected or schema-unexpected locations and schema- irrelevant objects. After each scene, a distractor task was presented, followed by the test scene. In the first analysis, false memory rates were examined by adding objects, which were not present during study, into test scenes; in the second analysis, false memory rates were assessed by shifting schema-consistent objects from a schema-expected to a schema-unexpected location or vice versa between study and test scene. In both analyses, target objects that remained in the same location for both study and test scenes assessed for true memories. Three different age groups were studied; younger children aged seven and eight, older children aged nine and ten, and adults who were university students. Results revealed that overall, adults were more schema-bound, and had significantly higher levels of true memories as well as significantly lower levels of false memories compared to younger and older children. Furthermore, schema-inconsistent objects attracted lower levels of false memories across all age groups. However, objects that shifted from a schema-unexpected to a schema-expected location yielded high false memories for object-location pairing. This study is of particular significance to the field of forensic psychology.

Schema, false memory, source monitoring, distinctiveness heuristic, object-location binding.

The experiment was programmed using a computer software called Psyscript and was run on a Mac laptop. Four different environments were used during the experiment, which were a kitchen, a living room, an office and a bathroom. For the practice run, a separate image, which was a seminar room, was used. All the photographs used were standardized across all four environments, with each photograph being 1300 x 864 pixels, to ensure that the quality and clarity of each photograph was the same. To every environment image, three different versions were prepared for the study scene, ensuring that all six of the schema-relevant target objects had the opportunity to appear in a schema-unexpected location, a schema-expected location, or not being present at all. Moreover, to every version, two test scenes were prepared, to create a variation between which of the target objects that were initially placed in schema-relevant or schema-irrelevant locations during study phase would be shifted during the test scene. Figure 1a is an example of a bathroom scene during study phase and Figure 1b is an example of the test scene for that version. The program had been set to ensure that the sequence of the four different environment images would be pseudo-randomized for counterbalancing purposes, in which all the scenes were presented once, whereas the versions and test scenes selected were randomized. Moreover, the target objects that were circled during the test scenes were also pseudo-randomized, in which each object would only be circled once. For the practice run, both the study scene and the test scene were presented in a hardcopy form, which was laminated. Two separate slips of paper were prepared, one being “Was this object anywhere in this picture before?” for the participants allocated to the Presence condition, and “Was this object in this place before?” for the participants allocated to the Location condition. The paper slips containing the questions were left on the table for participants to refer to.

Figure 1a The above image depicts version 1 of the bathroom scene. The two target objects in schema-expected locations are the shampoo and toothpaste, whilst the two target objects in the schema-unexpected locations are the mirror and toilet brush, and the schema-irrelevant objects are the file, glove, toy.





































Figure 1b The above image depicts Test 1 of Version 1 of the bathroom scene. The mirror has now been shifted from a schema-unexpected location to a schema-expected location whilst the toothpaste remains in the same position. The shampoo has now been shifted to a schema-unexpected location. The toilet paper and weighing scale, which was previously not present during the study scene is now present in the schema-expected and schema-unexpected location respectively, with the toilet paper being circled for the participant to respond to. The schema-irrelevant objects that were added were the jacket, pencil case and handbag.

Design:
This study consists of two analyses; to address the two research questions. First regarding whether location affects true and false memories, and second, to see what shifts in location do to memory for the original object memory (condition 1) and object-location pairing (condition 2). The first analysis investigates the true and false memories involving objects that were present and not present at study, whilst the second analysis investigates the true and false memories toward objects that were present at study and were later shifted during the test scene. Hence, a mixed ANOVA design was used to address the first of these questions. The within-subject independent variables include the study (present, not present), and the schema appropriateness of the object location (schema-expected, schema-unexpected, irrelevant). The between- subjects factors include the conditions (presence, location) and age groups (younger children, older children, adults). The “yes” responses for the objects that were present in both scenes but not shifted and objects that were not present during the study scenes but were present in the test scene were analyzed.
For objects that were shifted during the study and test scenes, the within-subjects factor was schema (schema-expected, schema-unexpected), and the shifting of objects (shift, no shift). The between-subjects factors include the conditions (Presence, Location) and age groups (younger children, older children and adults). The dependent variable was the accuracy of responses given, to compare the difference between objects that shifted and objects that did not shift.
Procedure:
The experiment consisted of a study phase, a distracter task and a test phase, which took an estimated 10 minutes to complete and was conducted in an unoccupied learning classroom, in the Burnley Primary School, whereby participants were individually tested. Each participant was required to undergo a practice run before the actual experiment took place, to ensure that the participant had understood what he or she had to do. In the practice run, the laminated image of the seminar room was presented alongside the paper slip with either the Presence question or the Location question, depending on which condition the participant had been assigned to. The participants were given 12 seconds to study the image. After 12 seconds, the participant was presented with another image with several target objects circled, in which the objects would be pointed to one by one by the researcher. The participant would then be prompted to verbally respond if they had either seen that object anywhere before during the study scene or if that object had been in that location before during the study scene. For both conditions, the participants were instructed to press either the “Y” or “N” key on the keyboard in response to whether they had seen the circled object anywhere in the picture before during the study phase (Presence condition), or if they had seen the circled object in that particular location before were it the Location condition. Once the participants acknowledged that they had understood, they were presented with the actual experiment.
Each participant was required to study four different environments, in which one of three versions would be selected for every environment. Each study scene would last for 12 seconds for the participant to study, and then a distracter task would immediately appear. The distracter task, which lasted for 30 seconds, required the participant to hit any key on the keyboard whenever a specified animal (eg: giraffe, frog, hippopotamus) appeared. A green tick would appear every time the participant successfully presses a key before the specified animal disappears. Once 30 seconds was up, the distracter task would end, and one of two of the test scenes for that environment would appear. A total of twelve objects would be circled sequentially, with the next object only being circled 0.5s after the participant had given a response. Depending on which condition the participant was in, once every object had been circled, the participant would be required to respond to the question “was this object anywhere in this picture before?” (Presence condition), or “was this object in this place before?’ (Location condition). If the participant, who was in the ‘presence’ condition, deemed that the object was somewhere in the picture before, he or she would respond by pressing the “Y” for Yes on the keyboard; if it was deemed to not be in the picture before, the participant would then press the “N” for No on the keyboard. The same thing was conducted for the Location condition. Once the participant had responded to all 12 objects, a different environment scene would appear and the participant would be required to repeat the process until all four scenes had been shown.

Lancaster University

Rachel Coyle

English

LA1 4YF

A total of 155 participants, representing three different age groups, took part in this research study. The three age groups consisted of younger children aged seven and eight, older children aged nine and ten, and adults, which were university students. 40 older children took part in the Presence condition (mean age=9.52, SE=0.08; 16 males, 24 females) and 38 older children took part in the Location condition (mean age= 9.47, SE=0.08; 10 males, 28 females). As for the adults, 18 university students took part in the Presence condition (mean age=19.67, SE=0.21; 4 males, 14 females) and 18 university students took part in the Location condition (mean age=19.94, SE=0.25; 4 males, 14 females) . For the younger children group, there were a total of 22 participants in the Presence condition (10 males, 12 females; mean age= 7.32, SE= 0.10) and 19 participants in the Location condition (9 males, 10 females; mean age= 7.32, SE= 0.11). The participants for the younger children group were recruited from a school located in Burnley. As the participants were all below the age of consent, consent forms were given to the participants’ parents as a means to indicate that they have allowed their child to participate in this study. This research was given approval by the Psychology Department Ethics Committee, which adhered to both the British Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association’s guidelines.