Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable. / Conway, Martin; Dewhurst, Stephen A.; Pearson, Neil et al.
In: Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 6, 11.2001, p. 673-686.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Conway, M, Dewhurst, SA, Pearson, N & Sapute, A 2001, 'The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable.', Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 673-686. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.740

APA

Conway, M., Dewhurst, S. A., Pearson, N., & Sapute, A. (2001). The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(6), 673-686. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.740

Vancouver

Conway M, Dewhurst SA, Pearson N, Sapute A. The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2001 Nov;15(6):673-686. doi: 10.1002/acp.740

Author

Conway, Martin ; Dewhurst, Stephen A. ; Pearson, Neil et al. / The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable. In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2001 ; Vol. 15, No. 6. pp. 673-686.

Bibtex

@article{b8651c1e1e7446bb9c2a3cc7a17c35d5,
title = "The self and recollection reconsidered: how a {\textquoteleft}failure to replicate{\textquoteright} failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable.",
abstract = "Hirshman and Lanning ([1999]) failed to replicate findings reported by Conway and Dewhurst ([1995]). There were, however, critical differences in design between the two sets of experiments. For example, Hirshman and Lanning used a within-subject design and a short retention interval, whereas Conway and Dewhurst used a between-subjects design and longer retention intervals. We demonstrate in a new series of experiments that the Conway and Dewhurst findings do replicate when the correct design is used and, moreover, we show that the design differences in Hirshman and Lanning's experiments account for their findings. Finally, we develop an account in terms of the self that can explain the complex pattern of findings, a pattern which lies beyound the scope of simple trace strength models of memory.",
author = "Martin Conway and Dewhurst, {Stephen A.} and Neil Pearson and Ajay Sapute",
year = "2001",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1002/acp.740",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "673--686",
journal = "Applied Cognitive Psychology",
issn = "0888-4080",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The self and recollection reconsidered: how a ‘failure to replicate’ failed and why trace strength accounts of recollection are untenable.

AU - Conway, Martin

AU - Dewhurst, Stephen A.

AU - Pearson, Neil

AU - Sapute, Ajay

PY - 2001/11

Y1 - 2001/11

N2 - Hirshman and Lanning ([1999]) failed to replicate findings reported by Conway and Dewhurst ([1995]). There were, however, critical differences in design between the two sets of experiments. For example, Hirshman and Lanning used a within-subject design and a short retention interval, whereas Conway and Dewhurst used a between-subjects design and longer retention intervals. We demonstrate in a new series of experiments that the Conway and Dewhurst findings do replicate when the correct design is used and, moreover, we show that the design differences in Hirshman and Lanning's experiments account for their findings. Finally, we develop an account in terms of the self that can explain the complex pattern of findings, a pattern which lies beyound the scope of simple trace strength models of memory.

AB - Hirshman and Lanning ([1999]) failed to replicate findings reported by Conway and Dewhurst ([1995]). There were, however, critical differences in design between the two sets of experiments. For example, Hirshman and Lanning used a within-subject design and a short retention interval, whereas Conway and Dewhurst used a between-subjects design and longer retention intervals. We demonstrate in a new series of experiments that the Conway and Dewhurst findings do replicate when the correct design is used and, moreover, we show that the design differences in Hirshman and Lanning's experiments account for their findings. Finally, we develop an account in terms of the self that can explain the complex pattern of findings, a pattern which lies beyound the scope of simple trace strength models of memory.

U2 - 10.1002/acp.740

DO - 10.1002/acp.740

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - 673

EP - 686

JO - Applied Cognitive Psychology

JF - Applied Cognitive Psychology

SN - 0888-4080

IS - 6

ER -