Influences of Levels of Processing, Misleading Intensity and Warnings on Memory Suggestibility


The influences of levels of processing at the encoding phase, misleading intensity at the misleading phase and warning at the retrieval phase on memory suggestibility were explored through the delayed retrieval errors paradigm, and the contributions of dynamic automatic processing and intentional processing to generation of memory suggestibility were deeply assessed through the Remember/Know/Guess paradigm. The results showed that levels of processing were an important influencing factor for memory suggestibility. The intentional processing at the encoding phase benefited the generation of memory suggestibility more than the automatic processing. The misleading intensity had a significant effect, where the misled-generate items were recalled at a higher level with a longer response time than the misled-read items. In addition, the warning in-creased both the memory suggestibility of misleading pictures and the memory accuracy of non-misleading pictures. This memory suggestibility was jointly caused by the automatic pro-cessing and intentional processing, but mainly intentional processing, and the warning increased the probability of intentional processing during the generation of memory suggestibility.

Share and Cite:

Cao, X. , Tu, S. & Chen, X. (2015). Influences of Levels of Processing, Misleading Intensity and Warnings on Memory Suggestibility. Psychology, 6, 708-717. doi: 10.4236/psych.2015.66069.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Arndt, J. (2006). Distinctive Information and False Recognition: The Contribution of Encoding and Retrieval Factors. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 113-130.
[2] Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). Fuzzy-Trace Theory and Children’s False Memories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71, 81-129.
[3] Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., Watson, J. M., & Gallo, D. A. (2005). The Importance of Material-Processing Interactions in Inducing False Memories. Memory & Cognition, 33, 389-395.
[4] Dewhurst, S. A., Bould, E., Knott, L. M., & Thorley, C. (2009). The Roles of Encoding and Retrieval Processes in Associative and Categorical Memory Illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 154-164.
[5] Gallo, D. A., Roberts, M. J., & Seamon, J. G. (1997). Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists: Can We Avoid Creating False Memories? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 271-276.
[6] Gallo, D. A., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2001). Associative False Recognition Occurs without Strategic Criterion Shifts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 579-586.
[7] Guo, X. Y., Wan, L. L., Guo, X. R., & Wei, Z. C. (2005). A Preliminary Exploration into the Unconsciousness Mechanism in False Memories. Psychological Science, 28, 362-367.
[8] Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. (2001). False Recognition Occurs More Frequently during Source Identification than during Old-New Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 375-383.
[9] Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2000). Dissociating Automatic and Intentional Processes in Children’s Eyewitness Memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 1-42.
[10] Holliday, R. E., & Hayes, B. K. (2001). Automatic and Intentional Processes in Children’s Eyewitness Suggestibility. Cognitive Development, 16, 617-636.
[11] Li, H. Y., Lian, R., & Weng, J. (2008). Effects of Forewarning, Repetition and Feedback on False Memories: An Analysis with the Signal Detection Theory. Psychological Science, 31, 1507-1509.
[12] Lindsay, S., Hagen, L., Read, J. D., Wade, K., & Garry, M. (2004). True Photographs and False Memories. Psychological Science, 15, 149-154.
[13] Loftus, E. F., Donders, K., Hoffman, H. G., & Schooler, J. W. (1989). Creating New Memories That Are Quickly Accessed and Confidently Held. Memory & Cognition, 17, 606-617.
[14] McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading Postevent Information and Memory for Events: Arguments and Evidence for Memory Impairment Hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1-16.
[15] McDermott, K. B., & Watson, J. M. (2001). The Rise and Fall of False Recall: The Impact of Presentation of Associates. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 160-176.
[16] Peters, M. J. V., Jelicic, M., Gorski, B., Sijstermans, K., Giesbrecht, T., & Merckelbach, H. (2008). The Corrective Effects of Warning on False Memories in the DRM Paradigm Are Limited to Full Attention Conditions. Acta Psychologica, 129, 308-314.
[17] Plancher, G., Nicolas, S., & Piolino, P. (2008). Influence of Suggestion in the DRM Paradigm: What State of Consciousness Is Associated with False Memories? Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1114-1122.
[18] Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2000). The Effects of a Level-of-Processing Manipulation on False Recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 158-162.
[19] Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Chan, J. C. K. (2010). Testing Promotes Eyewitness Accuracy with a Warning: Implications for Retrieval Enhanced Suggestibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 149-157.
[20] Tussing, A., & Greene, R. (1997). False Recognition of Associates: How Robust Is the Effect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 572-576.
[21] Westerberg, C. E., & Marsler, C. J. (2006). Do Instructional Warnings Reduce False Recognition? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 97-114.
[22] Yang, Z. L., Wang, S. R., & Tang, J. H. (2006). When Do False Memories Happen: Encoding/Maintaining Phase? Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 99-106.
[23] Ye, M. L., & Liu, X. L. (2008). A Study on the Effects of Level Processing on False Memories. Psychological Research, 1, 67-70.
[24] Zaragoza, M. S., & Mitchell, K. J. (1996). Repeated Exposure to Suggestion and the Creation of False Memories. Psychological Science, 7, 294-300.
[25] Zhou, C., & Nie, J. (2009). An Empirical Research on the Dual-Processing Mechanism of False Recognition. Psychological Science, 32, 334-337.
[26] Zhou, L. H., & Liu, A. L. (2003). The Summarize of Research on Suggestibility of Children’s Memory. Advances in Psychological Science, 11, 534-540.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.