An investigation of paradoxical memory effects

Hirshman, Elliot; Whelley, M.Margaret; Palij, Michael

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(89)90015-6

Cited by 68 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of a bizarreness effect with intentional learning instructions is not consistent with the results of Wollen and Cox (1981) or Hirshman et al (1989), who found significant bizarreness effects with intentional learning instructions. This discrepancy might be due to one of the several procedural differences between the experiments.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

“…The 12 common and 12 bizarre sentences used in Experiment I were taken from McDaniel and Einstein's Set I. These were the same sentences used in the Hirshman et al (1989) study, in which a bizarreness effect was obtained with intentional instructions. The 12 sentences used in Experiment 2 were taken from McDaniel and Einstein's Set 2.…”

Section: Experiments 1 and 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

Burns

1996

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bizarre imagery effect, better memory for bizarre stimuli than for common stimuli, is now an established finding. However, the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery are subject to several constraints (e.g., the use of mixed lists and free-recall tests). A further constraint on the bizarreness effect is demonstrated here. In each of two experiments, subjects were given either incidental or intentional study instructions and were asked to rate the vividness ofthe images they formed from the bizarre and common sentences. Contrary to conclusions based on available evidence, the bizarreness effect in free recall was manifested only with the incidental learning instructions. This additional constraint on the effect is consistent with the item-order account of bizarreness.A generally accepted view of imagery is that bizarre images lead to better retention performance than common images. Until fairly recently, however, there was little empirical support for this belief. This lack of empirical support for the mnemonic benefits ofbizarre imagery led Postman (1975) to conclude that" despite popular misconceptions, bizarre images are no better as memory aids than common ones" (p. 322). More recently, however, Einstein and McDaniel (1987) reviewed the bizarre imagery literature and demonstrated that the effect does manifest itself under certain experimental conditions: namely, when mixed lists are used and retention is assessed with a free-recall test (see also McDaniel & Einstein, 1986).McDaniel and his colleagues have drawn from research on the generation effect-better memory for self-generated items than for items that are simply read-to explain the effects oflist type (mixed or unmixed) on the bizarreness effect (McDaniel, Einstein, DeLosh, May, & Brady, 1995). Similar to the bizarreness effect, the generation effect generally does not occur with unmixed list designs (see, e.g., Siamecka & Katsaiti, 1987). One explanation for the absence of generation effects with unmixed lists is based on the item-order distinction. Presumably, generation enhances the encoding of item-specific information but at the expense of processing serial order information (Burns, Curti, & Lavin, 1993; Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991;Serra & Nairne, 1993). The additional item information given to the generated items tends to improve recall by about the same amount as the additional order information improves recall for the simply read items, thus resulting in a null effect. When mixed lists are used, however, the simply read items either do not receive the additional order processing or the order processing spreads to nearby generated items. This results in better recall for the generated items because all the items receive roughly equivalent amounts oforder processing, but the generated items receive more item processing. McDaniel et al. (1995) have argued that in betweenlists designs, bizarre sentences enhance the processing of item information, and hinder the processing of order information, much like self-generated items. This processing tr...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

Section: Experiments 1 and 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

Burns

1996

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such a list, the distinctive items do not contain a set of shared features, and so a common item would overlap with features in active memory to the same extent as a distinctive item would. Several researchers have reported this predicted pattern of results (Hirshman et al, 1989;Schmidt, 1991).…”

Section: The Incongruity Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 93%

Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?

1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current status of the concept of distinctiveness as applied to memory research is discussed. In spite of the fact that distinctiveness is difficult to define, an increasing number of memory phenomena have been explained in terms of distinctiveness. These phenomena are grouped into four classes, which vary in how distinctiveness is operationalized. Distinctiveness has different effects on memory performance, depending on how it is defined, suggesting that the concept of distinctiveness has been overapplied. In addition, current theoretical explanations of the effects of distinctiveness on memory fail to specify what the different definitions of distinctiveness have in common, and fail to encompass adequately the broad range of phenomena to be explained. A limited theory of distinctiveness is proposed, in order to explain why conceptually incongruent material is remembered well.The unusual, bizarre, or distinctive event seems inherently more memorable than common, everyday occurrences. Psychologists often refer to this phenomenon as the von Restorff (1933) effect. The effects of distinctiveness on memory are exploited in textbooks in which major concepts are printed in bold print, and in virtually every form of advertising in which loud music, bright colors, or other distinctive stimuli scream for our attention. Recently, memory researchers have invoked the concept of distinctiveness to explain an increasing range of phenomena, from detailed memory of the space shuttle explosion (McCloskey, Wible, & Cohen 1988) to enhanced memory of concrete words (Marschark, Richman, Yuille, & Hunt, 1987). Unfortunately, the features shared by the many faces of distinctiveness have not been specified, and the mechanisms responsible for the effects of distinctiveness on memory have not been delineated.The current status of research concerning the effects of distinctiveness on memory is reviewed below. For the sake of brevity, this review will be restricted to a discussion of long-term memory performance. Many of the issues that will be raised, however, could easily be applied to research concerning short-term memory performance as well. A brief historical review of distinctiveness in memory research will be followed by an analysis of the definition of distinctiveness. Several criteria will be selected that should enable us to classify previous operational definitions of distinctiveness. The different classes of distinctiveness do not lead to a common set or pattern of results, and thus they do not converge on a common hypothetical construct. Prominent theoretical frameworks will be considered, but none of the theories encompasses the many faces of distinctiveness. A more limited definition of distinctiveness will be proposed, and a theoretical framework for the effects of distinctiveness, based on this limited definition, will be presented. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTSThe distinctiveness hypothesis is a direct descendent of the von Restorff effect, which was investigated extensively in the 1950s and 60s. In the most recent review of...

show abstract

“…The objective of our study was to better characterize the contribution of distinctiveness at encoding to previous contradicting findings attributing mnemonic advantage to novelty and familiarity (Axmacher et al, 2010;Badham & Maylor, 2015;Bein et al, 2015;Gronau & Shachar, 2015;Hirshman et al, 1989;Kishiyama & Yonelinas, 2003;Meeter, Murre, & Talamini, 2004;Michelon et al, 2003;Schulman, 1974;Stoppel et al, 2009;Tulving & Kroll, 1995;van Kesteren et al, 2012). Across two experiments and using two behavioral measures we found that an experimental list-based distinctiveness manipulation-varying experimental proportions-differentially affected items encoded in a conceptually novel (incongruent) or familiar (congruent) context: Distinctiveness was monotonically correlated with memory performance and reaction time (RT) for items encoded in a novel context, whereas memory and RT performance for familiar items was overall stable across all proportion conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In isolation paradigms, the novel item is categorically distinct from its surrounding items (Hunt & Lamb, 2001;Hunt, 1995;Kishiyama & Yonelinas, 2003;Knight, 1996;Michelon, Snyder, Buckner, McAvoy, & Zacks, 2003;von Restorff, 1933;as cited in Hunt, 1995). Similar mechanisms have been suggested to account for additional novelty-related findings such as the low-frequency words advantage in recognition memory (Glanzer & Adams, 1985;Reder, Paynter, Diana, Ngiam, & Dickison, 2007) or the mnemonic advantage sometimes found for bizarre pictures or sentences (e.g., the conceptually novel sentence "The MAID licked AMMONIA off the TABLE") in free recall (Hirshman, Whelley, & Palu, 1989;McDaniel & Bugg, 2008;McDaniel, Dornburg, & Guynn, 2005;McDaniel et al, 1995). A distinctiveness account can also be applied for conceptual novelty mnemonic advantage in cases where a strong violation of expectation occurs, such as seeing a kitchen aid embedded in a picture of a farm (e.g., Friedman, 1979;M€ antyl€ a & B€ ackman, 1992;Pezdek, Whetstone, Reynolds, Askari, & Dougherty, 1989;Prull, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinctiveness Benefits Novelty (and Not Familiarity), but Only Up to a Limit: The Prior Knowledge Perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novelty is a pivotal player in cognition, and its contribution to superior memory performance is a widely accepted convention. On the other hand, mnemonic advantages for familiar information are also well documented. Here, we examine the role of experimental distinctiveness as a potential explanation for these apparently conflicting findings. Across two experiments, we demonstrate that conceptual novelty, an unfamiliar combination of familiar constituents, is sensitive to its experimental proportions: Improved memory for novelty was observed when novel stimuli were relatively rare. Memory levels for familiar items, in contrast, were completely unaffected by experimental proportions, highlighting their insensitivity to list-based distinctiveness. Finally, no mnemonic advantage for conceptual novelty over familiarity was observed even when novel stimuli were extremely rare at study. Together, these results imply that novel and familiar items are processed via partially distinct mechanisms, with (at least some facets of) novelty not providing a mnemonic advantage over familiarity.

show abstract

An investigation of paradoxical memory effects

Cited by 68 publications

References 32 publications

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?

Distinctiveness Benefits Novelty (and Not Familiarity), but Only Up to a Limit: The Prior Knowledge Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About