Advertisement

Analysis of a Model for Source Monitoring

  • William H. Batchelder
  • Xiangen Hu
  • David M. Riefer
Chapter
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Abstract

This paper extends and analyzes the Batchelder and Riefer (1990, Psychological Review) model for source monitoring. Source monitoring is a popular memory paradigm in which subjects study items from several different sources and later are tested for their ability to recognize the source of each item. The extended model is identifiable, it can handle an arbitrary number of sources, and it enables one to disentangle response bias factors from memory capacities. The model is used to determine the causes of the “picture superiority effect”, where items presented as pictures perform better on source monitoring than items presented as printed words. We analyze a new experiment that shows that the picture superiority effect is due to memory capacity factors rather than response bias factors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Batchelder, W.H., & Riefer, D. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. Psychological Review, 97, 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batchelder, W.H. (1991). Getting wise about minimum distance measures. Review of goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. By Read, T. R. C., & Cressie, N. A. C. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackwell, H. R. (1963). Neural theories of simple visual discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 53, 129–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1–38.Google Scholar
  5. Devolder, A. P., & Pressley, M. (1989). Metamemory across the adult lifespan. Canadian Psychology, 30, 578–587.Google Scholar
  6. Durso, F.T., & Johnson, M.K. (1980). The effect of orienting tasks on recognition, recall, and modality confusion of pictures and words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foley, M.A., Durso, F.T., Wilder, A., & Friedman, R. (1991). Developmental comparisons of explicit versus implicit imagery and reality monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, D.M., & Swets, J.A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Hu, X. (1990). Statistical inference program for multinomial source monitoring models. Version 1. 0. University of California, Irvine (avilable upon request).Google Scholar
  10. Hu, X., & Batchelder, W.H. (To Appear). The statistical analysis of multinomial processing tree models with the EM algorithm. Psychometrika.Google Scholar
  11. Klatzky, R.L. (1975). Human memory. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  12. Laming, D. (1973), Mathematical psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lindsay, S.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1991). Recognition memory and source monitoring. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29, 203–205.Google Scholar
  14. Macmillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (1991). Detection theory: A users guide. New York: Combridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory, a theoretical framework and new findings. In G.H. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Read, T.R.C., & Cressie, N.A.C. (1988). Goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Riefer, D.M., & Batchelder, W.H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95, 318–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riefer, D.M., & Batchelder, W.H. (1991). Statistical inference for multinomial processing tree models. In J.-P. Doignon & J.-Cl. Falmagne (Eds.), Mathematical psychology: Current developments (pp. 313–316). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Snodgrass, J.G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • William H. Batchelder
    • 1
  • Xiangen Hu
    • 1
  • David M. Riefer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State UniversitySan BernardinoUSA

Personalised recommendations