The primary results from our experiment can be summarized as significant because out of the 4 word
        lists we presented, subjects were able to recognize 60 percent of the critical nonpresented words, which
        is consistent with previous research on creating false memories. Our findings suggest that there was a high
        level of false recall during the recognition test due to the filler math problem task. Had the subjects been
        asked to recognize the words in the "New/Old" test without the math problems, they would have recalled
        more words accurately. Our other findings showed that the subjects judged the critical lure words as "Old"
        and "Remember" in the same manner as they chose the studied words, suggesting that false memories
        were created.

        Our findings support previous research, such as Roediger and McDermott (1995) because both studies
        showed that false memories can be created. Roediger and McDermott (1995) asked participants to listen to a
        series of words to recall the list or to solve math problems. After the recall task, participants were given a
        recognition test in which they were asked to make a judgment on either old-new and know-remember words.
        The results of Roediger and McDermott's study indicated that in the recall task, subjects recalled the critical
        nonpresented word on 55% of the lists. The results also indicated that the act of recall helped the subjects
        recognize more words. This can be attributed to critical lure words that were not present in the word lists.

        These findings are relevant because they suggest that people can be manipulated into believing something
        is there when it really isn't. This has crucial importance when dealing with psychology patients who suddenly
        recall repressed memories of acts of abuse during therapy. This also has important value to criminal cases on
        trial with witness testimony, because it shows that their memories can be distorted and the court system might
        want to rethink their eyewitness questioning methods

        The experimenters tried to minimize anything that would cause complications in this study. The only problem
        we had was attributed to a small number of participants. We had only 18 college graduates which can cause
        a bias in the results. Perhaps a larger sample would show different results.

        Another improvement to this study can be the way the stimulus was presented. In Roediger and McDermott,
        their participants were given auditory lists of words to remember. Our experiment had a visual stimulus which
        can cause different results. Even though the results stayed true with previous research, perhaps a larger
        sample would show otherwise.