title: Influences of Source - Item Contingency and Schematic Knowledge on Source Monitoring: Tests of the Probability-Matching Account.
abstract: The authors investigated conditions under which judgments in source-monitoring tasks are influenced by prior schematic knowledge. According to a probability-matching account of source guessing (Spaniol & Bayen, 2002), when people do not remember the source of information, they match source guessing probabilities to the perceived contingency between sources and item types. When they do not have a representation of a contingency, they base their guesses on prior schematic knowledge. The authors provide support for this account in two experiments with sources presenting information that was expected for one source and somewhat unexpected for another. Schema-relevant information about the sources was provided at the time of encoding. When contingency perception was impeded by dividing attention, participants showed schema-based guessing (Experiment 1). Manipulating source - item contingency also affected guessing (Experiment 2). When this contingency was schema-inconsistent, it superseded schema-based expectations and led to schema-inconsistent guessing.
authors: Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.
authors: Ute J
authors: UJ
authors: Bayen
authors: Beatrice G
authors: BG
authors: Kuhlmann
references: Psychol Res. 2007 Sep;71(5):524-38
references: 16639615
references: Am J Psychol. 1962 Dec;75:634-9
references: 14016794
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jul;28(4):631-51
references: 12109758
references: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):518-35
references: 1502275
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Apr;68(4):565-79
references: 7738766
references: Mem Cognit. 2000 Apr;28(3):480-500
references: 10881564
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jan;28(1):116-37
references: 11827074
references: Memory. 2006 Feb;14(2):148-60
references: 16484106
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Nov;75(5):1155-78
references: 9866182
references: Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):267-73
references: 17695354
references: Mem Cognit. 1978 Sep;6(5):544-53
references: 24203388
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 May;26(3):582-600
references: 10855419
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1995 Jun;124(2):137-160
references: 7782736
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jul;60(7):1015-40
references: 17616917
references: Mem Cognit. 1996 Jul;24(4):417-28
references: 8757491
references: J Exp Psychol. 1954 Apr;47(4):225-34
references: 13152299
references: Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):3-28
references: 8346328
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 May;34(3):460-77
references: 18444749
references: J Exp Psychol. 1959 Jun;57(6):413-6
references: 13654659
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Mar;6(1):57-86
references: 12199315
references: Conscious Cogn. 2003 Jun;12(2):257-78
references: 12763008