The validity of the process dissociation procedure was examined by manipulating attention and speed of responding in a recognition task. Both manipulations were expected to decrease the probability of controlled memory processes, c, while leaving the probability of automatic memory processes, a, unaffected. In order to estimate c and a, a multinomial processing tree model was fitted to the data. Contrary to expectation, a double dissociation (i.e.a decrease inc coupled with an increase in a) was obtained, suggesting that a does not accurately measure the probability of automatic processes. The results are discussed with reference to the independence assumption in the process dissociation procedure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatchelderW. H.RieferD. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring.Psychological Review97, 548–564.
2.
BeringerJ. (1992). Experimental run-time system [Computer program]Frankfurt: BeriSoft.
3.
BuchnerA.ErdfelderE.StevensM. C.MartensenH.The nature of memory processes underlying recognition judgments in the process dissociation procedure.Memory & Cognition. in press.
4.
BuchnerA.ErdfelderE.Vaterrodt-PlünneckeB. (1995). Toward unbiased measurement of conscious and unconscious memory processes within the process dissociation framework.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124, 137–160.
5.
CurranT.HintzmanD. L. (1995). Violations of the independence assumption in process dissociation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 531–547.
6.
DebnerJ. A.JacobyL. L. (1994). Unconscious perception: Attention, awareness, and control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20, 304–317.
7.
EngelkampJ.ZimmerH. D. (1994). The human memory. A multi-modal approachGöttingen: Hogrefe.
8.
EngelkampJ.ZimmerH. D.BiegelmannU. E. (1993). Bizarreness effects in verbal tasks and subject-performed tasks.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology5, 393–415.
9.
FaulF.ErdfelderE. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MSDOS [Computer program]Bonn, FRG: Bonn University, Department of Psychology.
10.
GrafP.KomatsuS. (1994). Process dissociation procedure: Handle with caution!.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology6, 113–129.
11.
HertelP. T.MilanS. (1994). Depressive deficits in recognition: Dissociation of recollection and familiarity.Journal of Abnormal Psychology103, 736–742.
12.
HuX. (1991). Statistical inference program for multinomial binary tree models, [Computer program]Irvine, CA: University of California at Irvine.
13.
HuX.BatchelderW. H. (1994). The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm.Psychometrika59, 21–48.
14.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory and Language30, 513–541.
15.
JacobyL. L.Ste-MarieD.TothJ. P. (1993). Redefining automaticity: Unconscious influences, awareness, and control.Attention, selection, awareness, and control. A tribute to D. Broadbent.BaddeleyA.WeiskrantzL.Oxford: Oxford University Press261–282.
16.
JacobyL. L.TothJ. P.YonelinasA. P. (1993). Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General122, 139–154.
17.
JenningsJ. M.JacobyL. L. (1993). Automatic versus intentional uses of memory: Aging, attention, and control.Psychology and Aging8, 283–293.
18.
JoordensS.MerikleP. M. (1993). Independence or redundancy? Two models of conscious and unconscious influences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General122, 462–467.
19.
KintschW. (1970). Models for free recall and recognition.Models of human memory.NormanD. A.New York: Academic Press333–374.
20.
KomatsuS.-I.GrafP.UttlB. (1995). Process dissociation procedure: Core assumptions fail, sometimes.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology7, 19–40.
21.
LeCompteD. C. (1995). Recollective experience in the revelation effect: Separating the contributions of recollection and familiarity.Memory & Cognition23, 324–334.
22.
LindsayS. D.JacobyL. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 219–234.
23.
NealA.HeskethB.AndrewsS. (1995). Instance-based categorization: Automatic versus intentional forms of retrieval.Memory & Cognition23, 227–242.
24.
Richardson-KlavehnA.GardinerJ. M. (1995). Retrieval volition and memorial awareness in stem completion: An empirical analysis.Psychological Research57, 166–178.
25.
RieferD. M.BatchelderW. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes.Psychological Review95, 318–339.
26.
RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (1994). The problem of differing false-alarm rates for the process dissociation procedure: Comment on Verfaillie and Treadwell (1993).Neuropsychology8, 284–288.
27.
RussoR.AndradeJ. (1995). The directed forgetting effect in word-fragment completion: An application of the process dissociation procedure.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology48A, 405–423.
28.
TothJ. P.ReingoldE. M.JacobyL. L. (1994). Toward a redefinition of implicit memory: Process dissociations following elaborative processing and self-generation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20, 290–303.
29.
TothJ. P.ReingoldE. M.JacobyL. L. (1995). A response to Graf and Komatsu's critique of the process dissociation procedure: When is caution necessary?.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology7, 113–130.
30.
Vaterrodt-PlünneckeB. (1994). Multinomiale Mod ellierung impliziter Gedächtnisprozesse: Ein alternativer Ansatz.Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte PsychologieXLI, 295–314.
31.
VerfaellieM.TreadwellJ. R. (1993). Status of recognition memory in amnesia.Neuropsycholgoy7, 5–13.
32.
YonelinasA. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual process model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition20, 1341–1354.
33.
YonelinasA. P.JacobyL. L. (1994). Dissociations of processes in recognition memory: Effects of interference and of response speed.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology48, 516–534.
34.
YonelinasA. P.JacobyL. L. (1995a). Dissociatin g automatic and controlled processes in a memory search task: Beyond implicit memory.Psychological Research57, 156–165.
35.
YonelinasA. P.JacobyL. L. (1995b). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency.Journal of Memory and Language34, 622–643.
