216 • CHAPTER 8 Everyday Memory and Memory Errors
test, participants were told that all of
the names they had seen in the fi rst part
of the experiment were nonfamous.
Because the test was given shortly after
the participants had seen the fi rst list
of nonfamous names, they correctly
identifi ed most of the old nonfamous
names (like Sebastian Weissdorf and
Valerie Marsh) as being nonfamous.
The interesting result occurred
in the delayed test, which happened
24 hours later. When tested on the
same list of names a day later, partici-
pants were more likely to identify the
old nonfamous names as being famous.
Thus, even though they may have iden-
tifi ed Sebastian Weissdorf as not being
famous in the immediate test, his name was more likely to be labeled as famous 24 hours
later. Because of this result, Jacoby’s paper is titled “Becoming Famous Overnight.”
How did Sebastian Weissdorf become famous overnight? To answer this question,
put yourself in the place of one of Jacoby’s participants. It is 24 hours since you saw the
fi rst list of nonfamous names, and you now have to decide whether Sebastian Weissdorf
is famous or nonfamous. How do you make your decision? Sebastian Weissdorf doesn’t
pop out as someone you know of, but the name is familiar. You ask yourself the question:
“Why is this name familiar?” This is a source monitoring problem, because to answer this
question you need to determine the source of your familiarity. Are you familiar with the
name Sebastian Weissdorf because you saw it 24 hours earlier, or because it is the name
of a famous person? Apparently, some of Jacoby’s participants decided that the familiar-
ity was caused by fame, so the previously unknown Sebastian Weissdorf became famous!
Later in the chapter, when we consider some of the issues involved in determining
the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, we will see that situations that create a sense of
familiarity can lead to source monitoring errors, such as identifying the wrong person
as having been at the scene of a crime.
Remembering Who Said What: Source Monitoring and Gender Stereotypes When
in doubt about what we remember, we often make use of what we know about the
world, and often we do this unconsciously. An example is provided by an experiment
by Richard Marsh and coworkers (2006), which showed that people’s performance on
a source monitoring task can be infl uenced by gender stereotypes. They used the follow-
ing method to test for source monitoring.
METHOD Testing for Source Monitoring
In a typical memory experiment, items such as words, pictures, or statements are presented,
and the participant’s task in a later test session is to either recall or recognize as many of the
previously presented items as possible. In a source monitoring experiment, items are presented
that originate from specifi c sources, and the participant’s task in the later test session is to indi-
cate which source was associated with each item. For example, participants can be presented
with a number of statements, such as “‘I went to the party today,’ John said,” or “‘I have a feeling
that the Mets are going to win tonight,’ Sally said. ” Later, in the source memory test, partici-
pants are presented with each statement, but without the speaker’s name, and are asked to
indicate who the speaker was. Source monitoring errors occur when the statement is attributed
to the wrong person. Thus, the key result in a source memory experiment is not what proportion
of items were remembered (although those data can be collected in the experiment), but what
proportion of items were paired with the correct source.
Read nonfamous
names from
acquisition plus
new nonfamous
names and new
famous names.
Q: Which are
famous?
Same as
immediate
test.
Result: Most nonfamous
names correctly identified
as nonfamous
Result: Some
nonfamous
names
misidentified
as famous
Wait
24 hours
Acquisition Immediate test Delayed test
Read
nonfamous
names.
●FIGURE 8.10 Design of Jacoby et al.’s (1989) “Becoming Famous Overnight”
experiment.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part.