Bland, Howe and Knott (2016) showed that in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, false recognition of unpresented critical lure words is selectively elevated for list material congruent with a specific discrete induced emotion (fear or anger), even though the two emotions were matched on valence and arousal. This demonstrated that emotion-congruent false memory operates at the level of discrete emotion categories, not just general positive or negative mood, but the effect rests on a single experiment using mild film-induced emotions. What the paper explicitly left open is which mechanisms produce the discrete emotion-congruency effect — emotion-specific spreading activation, emotion-congruent gist extraction, differential appraisal patterns, or approach-versus-avoidance motivational orientation. Whether the effect is robust beyond the original demonstration, generalizing to other discrete emotion categories and to induction strengths beyond mild film clips, likewise remains untested. Later literature has addressed mechanisms and generalization only at the coarser mood-valence level, and a 2024 review explicitly identifies measuring specific-emotion effects on false memory beyond valence and arousal as an unmet need.

Background

A false memory is a report of an event or item that was never actually encountered. The dominant laboratory procedure for studying such errors is the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm: participants study lists of semantically associated words (e.g., bed, rest, dream), and afterwards often falsely remember the unpresented associate that ties the list together (the critical lure, e.g., sleep). Two frameworks dominate explanations of DRM false memories: associative-activation accounts, in which studying list items spreads activation through a semantic-affective network until the lure reaches threshold, and fuzzy-trace theory, in which memory stores both verbatim details and coarse 'gist' representations, with false memories arising when a lure matches the extracted gist.

Whether a participant's emotional state modulates these errors has been studied since Bower's (1981) network theory of mood and memory proposed that an induced mood activates congruent material in an associative network. Early work was at the level of general affective dimensions rather than specific emotions. Storbeck and Clore (2011) showed that negative affect induced before encoding reduces false recognition of positive and neutral lures relative to positive affect. Corson and Verrier (2007) induced four discrete emotional states (happiness, serenity, anger, sadness) but used only neutral DRM lists, finding effects of arousal but not of the specific emotion. Knott and Thorley (2014) showed that mood-congruent false memories (more false recognition of negative lures in a negative mood) persist over a delay. In clinical territory, Howe and Malone (2011) found that participants with major depressive disorder produced more false memories for depression-relevant material, and Bookbinder and Brainerd's (2016) review catalogued the field's contradictory findings on whether emotion increases or decreases false memory. Across all of this work, 'emotion congruency' was manipulated as positive versus negative mood or valence, leaving open whether false memory is sensitive to which specific emotion a person is in when valence and arousal are held constant.

Bland, Howe and Knott (2016) closed part of that gap. Participants were induced into fear, anger, or a no-induction control state using normed film clips, then studied DRM lists whose words and critical lures were fear-related, anger-related, or neutral, with valence and arousal matched across the fear and anger lists. False recognition of critical lures was higher for lists congruent with the induced emotion (e.g., .93 for fear lists in the fear group versus .57 for anger lists in the same group), and this congruency effect was carried mainly by 'remember' judgments — subjective reports of recollection rather than mere familiarity — in a remember/know/guess procedure, which asks participants to state whether recognition is accompanied by conscious recollection, familiarity only, or a guess. The authors interpreted the effect via associative-activation theory (the emotion node in the semantic-affective network is activated by induction and spreads activation to congruent lures), fuzzy-trace theory (an emotion-congruent state biases gist extraction toward congruent material), and appraisal accounts, noting that fear and anger also differ in motivational direction: fear promotes avoidance while anger promotes approach. However, the authors could not discriminate between these candidate mechanisms, and they explicitly flagged limitations: the induced emotions were mild and film-based (they note they ethically could not induce the intensity of a real attack), the anger clip may have co-activated disgust, and weak cross-list associative links between fear and anger words could not be fully eliminated. The paper's closing sentence states that future research should establish the underlying mechanisms responsible for the effect.

Problem Statement

The problem is to explain the discrete emotion-congruency effect in false memory discovered by Bland, Howe and Knott (2016): participants induced into fear or anger falsely recognize more DRM critical lures from word lists whose emotional content matches their induced emotion, even with valence and arousal equated across the fear and anger materials. It is to isolate the mechanism (or mechanisms) that produces the effect, discriminating among the candidate accounts the original paper could not separate: (a) emotion-specific spreading activation, in which induction activates a discrete emotion node in the semantic-affective network that spreads to congruent lures; (b) emotion-congruent gist extraction, in which the induced state biases fuzzy-trace gist toward congruent material; (c) differential appraisal patterns associated with specific emotions; and (d) approach-versus-avoidance motivational orientation, since fear drives avoidance and anger drives approach. The problem also concerns the effect's boundary conditions: whether the effect generalizes to other discrete emotion categories and to induction strengths beyond mild film clips.

References

  1. Bland, C. E., Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. (2016). Discrete emotion-congruent false memories in the DRM paradigm. Emotion, 16(5), 611–619. doi:10.1037/emo0000153. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000153 (open-access accepted manuscript: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/13029/)
  2. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), 129–148. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129
  3. Corson, Y., & Verrier, N. (2007). Emotions and false memories. Psychological Science, 18(3), 208–211. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01874.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01874.x
  4. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2011). Affect influences false memories at encoding: Evidence from recognition data. Emotion, 11(4), 981–989. doi:10.1037/a0022754. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022754
  5. Howe, M. L., & Malone, C. (2011). Mood-congruent true and false memory: Effects of depression. Memory, 19(2), 192–201. doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.544073. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.544073
  6. Knott, L. M., & Thorley, C. (2014). Mood-congruent false memories persist over time. Cognition and Emotion, 28(5), 903–912. doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.860016. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.860016
  7. Bookbinder, S. H., & Brainerd, C. J. (2016). Emotion and false memory: The context–content paradox. Psychological Bulletin, 142(12), 1315–1351. doi:10.1037/bul0000077. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000077
  8. Zhang, W., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2019). Mood impedes monitoring of emotional false memories: Evidence for the associative theories. Memory, 27(2), 198–208. doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1498107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1498107
  9. Zhang, W., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2018). If You're Happy and You Know It: Positive Moods Reduce Age-Related Differences in False Memory. Child Development, 89(4), e332–e341. doi:10.1111/cdev.12890. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12890
  10. Zhong, Y., Zhang, W., Li, Y., & Fan, W. (2018). 时间压力对错误记忆的影响：情绪的调节作用 [The effect of time pressure on false memories: The moderating role of emotion]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(9), 929–939. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00929. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00929
  11. Griffin, N. R., & Schnyer, D. M. (2020). Memory distortion for orthographically associated words in individuals with depressive symptoms. Cognition, 203, 104330. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104330
  12. Knott, L., Wilkinson, S., Hellenthal, M., Shah, D., & Howe, M. L. (2022). Generative processing and emotional false memories: A generation "cost" for negative false memory formation but only after delay. Cognition and Emotion, 36(7), 1448–1457. doi:10.1080/02699931.2022.2128063. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2022.2128063
  13. Brauer, K., & Proyer, R. T. (2023). The fear of being laughed at (gelotophobia) in adults and children: Testing trait-congruent false memories in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm. HUMOR, 36(2), 281–301. doi:10.1515/humor-2021-0035. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0035
  14. Yin, H., Zhou, Y., & Li, Z. (2024). Contradictory findings in the study of emotional false memory: A review on the inadvisability of controlling valence and arousal. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1380742. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380742. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380742
  15. Shahvaroughi, A., Dyevre, A., & Otgaar, H. (2025). Examining the effects of mood and emotional valence on the creation of false autobiographical memories. Memory & Cognition, 53(7), 2041–2055. doi:10.3758/s13421-025-01697-x. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01697-x
  16. Erol, E., & Savaş, D. D. (2026). False Memories in Depression and Anxiety Disorders: Cognitive Mechanisms and Experimental Findings. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar – Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 18(1), 224–243. doi:10.18863/pgy.1619492. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1619492