Composite models never (well, hardly ever) compromise: reply to Schooler and Tanaka (1991).

With respect to the influence of postevent information, Schooler and Tanaka (1991) made a useful distinction between composite recollections--in which subjects retrieve "items from both the original and the postevent sources" (p.97)--and compromise recollections--in which subjects retrieve" at least one feature that cannot be exclusively associated with either the original or the postevent sources, but which reflects some compromise between [the] two" (p.97). Schooler and Tanaka argued that only the latter constitutes good evidence for blend-memory representations of the CHARM-type. As it turns out, Schooler and Tanaka's intuitions (and Metcalfe & Bjork's, initially) are faulty. Compromise recall--defined as a preference for an intervening alternative over either of the actually presented alternatives--is not normally a prediction of CHARM and may not be a prediction of composite-trace models in general. Only under specialized conditions--a systematic displacement of the test alternatives or a systematic shift attributable to assimilation to prior semantic knowledge--will computer simulations of CHARM produce unimodal compromise recollection. Equally surprising is the fact that separate-trace models, under a different set of conditions, can predict compromise recollection.