Context effects in sentence memory.

What is the relationship between comprehension and memory? Ebbinghaus (1885Ebbinghaus ( /1964 began the scientific study of memory by attempting to avoid this question. By studying memory for three-letter trigrams under controlled experimental conditions, he assumed that he would not have to be concerned about the variability in how subjects understood or related to the stimuli. Nonetheless, Ebbinghaus noted that the lists of syllables he memorized exhibit very important and almost incomprehensible variations as to the ease or difficulty with which they are learned. It even appears from this point of view as if the differences between sense and nonsense material were not nearly as great as one would be inclined a priori to imagine. (p. 23) Others who followed in Ebbinghaus's footsteps measured differences in the meaningfulness of nonsense syllables (e.g., Archer, 1960;Glaze, 1928;Hull, 1933) in order to afford researchers better experimental control over these presumed variations in learning (see also Jenkins, 1985). Even the plainest materials seem to require an effort to find meaningfulness in order to comprehend and remember them (e.g., Prytulak, 1971).In contrast to Ebbinghaus's (1885/1964) approach, Bartlett (1932) presumed a direct relationship between processes involved in comprehension and acts of remembering. Specifically, Bartlett proposed that individuals engaged in a process of "effort after meaning," of which he wrote, it is fitting to speak of every human cognitive reaction-perceiving, imaging, remembering, thinking, and reasoning-as an effort after meaning. Certain of the tendencies which the subject brings with him into the situation with which he is called upon to deal are utilized so as to make his reaction the "easiest," or the least disagreeable, or the quickest and least obstructed that is at the time possible. When we try to discover how this is done we find that always it is by an effort to connect what is given with something else. (p. 44) In experiencing the world, humans presumably bring their past knowledge to bear on understanding current happenings. When it comes to remembering past occurrences, Bartlett argued that people attempt to make their recollections conform to cultural expectations, prior background knowledge, or the current context.To directly examine effort after meaning as it relates to memory, Auble and Franks (1978) developed an ingenious experimental paradigm in which subjects heard and later attempted to recall ambiguous sentences, such as "The clothes were ruined because the sign vanished," that were presented with or without disambiguating cues (i.e., wet paint). Where cues were provided, their conditions of presentation varied. In a control condition, the cue was meaningfully embedded within the sentence (i.e., "The clothes were ruined because the wet paint sign vanished"). In other conditions, the sentence preceded the cue. In four experiments, we examined free recall of ambiguous sentences with or without corresponding cues to facilitate comprehension, using A...

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of "effort after meaning" on recall: Differences in within- and between-subjects designs

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

“…A set of 62 sentences, both easy and difficult, was constructed. Some of these sentences had been used previously (Auble & Franks, 1978;Bransford & McCarrell, 1974;Johnson, Doll, Bransford, & Lapinski, 1974); the rest were generated by the authors. These sentences were rated by an independent group of 19 introductory psychology students as to whether the sentences were understandable in isolation (Le., without appropriate cues) and whether the sentences could be understood given the appropriate cues.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effort toward comprehension: Elaboration or “aha”?

Auble¹,

Franks²,

Soraci³

1979

121

115

Auble and Franks (1978) found that a process termed "effort toward comprehension" was important in facilitating recall of sentences. Four experiments were conducted to further elucidate the nature of this process. Two hypotheses were considered: (1) Effort toward comprehension involves greater elaboration or deeper processing of the sentence; (2) effort toward comprehension can be viewed as an "aha" experience (i.e., a state of noncomprehension followed by comprehension of the sentencel. Results indicated that recall was significantly greater for subjects in conditions producing "aha" reactions. No support was found for the elaboration interpretation of effort toward comprehension. Auble and Franks (1978) present fmdings that indicate that a process termed "effort toward comprehension" can facilitate later recall. Using generally incomprehensible sentences and appropriate cues that render the sentences comprehensible, Auble and Franks (Experiment 2) found that presentation of a sentence followed by an appropriate cue facilitated recall relative to a condition in which the cue was meaningfully embedded in the sentence. This effect was attributed to processes involving differential degrees of effort toward comprehension. Further, in the former condition, in which the sentence and cue were presented separately, it was discovered that extra time during acquisition enhanced later recall, although extra time was not effective in the latter condition (Experiments I and 3). Auble and Franks (Experiment 4) also found that eventual compre· hension of the sentence was necessary for the process of effort toward comprehension to be effective in facilitating recall. Given these initial demonstrations, the purpose of the present studies is to more closely examine the nature of the processes involved in effort toward comprehension. Two possible mechanisms that could underly this process will be considered.The first possible mechanism will be termed the elaboration hypothesis. In this view, a greater amount of effort toward comprehension might be seen as related to or involving elaboration or deeper processing of the sentence (Craik & Lockhart, 1972;Craik & Tulving, 1975). Auble and Franks (1978, Experiments 1 and 2) discussed both elaborative processes occurring between the sentence and cue and elaborative processes occurring after the entire sentence-eue combination. Although these two potential types of elaborative processes couldThis research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 77-07248, awarded to Jeffery Franks and John Bransford. The authors wish to express their thanks to Denise Wunderlich for her help in conducting and analyzing these experiments. not be distinguished on the basis of their results, it was found that longer time intervals were effective in promoting recall relative to conditions that received no time. This fmding suggests that the underlying processes may involve some type of elaboration. That is, when a sentence and a cue are presented separately, subjects elaborate the sente...

“…One-third of the sentences were presented with no interval before or after the cue (no-time). It was hypothesized that extra time to process a sentence (as in the 5-before and 5-after conditions) would result in higher recall rates than when no time is presented, as in the no-time condition (Stoff & Eagle, 1971;Johnson, et al, 1974). If elaboration is more effective when it occurs after understanding is achieved, it would be expected that recall rates for the 5-after condition would be higher than for the 5-before condition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was also demonstrated by Bransford and Johnson (1972) and Bransford and McCarrell (1974) that even potentially meaningful stimuli are better recalled in the presence of appropriate contextual information. Johnson, Doll, Bransford, and Lapinski (1974) showed that generally incomprehensible sentences were recalled less well if subjects received an inappropriate context or no context than if they received appropriate contexts. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of effort toward comprehension on recall

Auble

Franks

1978

Four experiments examined free recall of generally incomprehensible sentences with appropriate cues that made the sentences comprehensible. A distinction is made between processes involved in an effort toward comprehension and elaboration processes that occur following comprehension. It was found that providing additional time for effort toward comprehension enhanced recall, while providing additional time for elaboration following comprehension did not enhance recall. It was also shown that the effects of effort toward comprehension were contingent upon eventual understanding of the sentence.The present experiments were designed to extend previous research on the effect of comprehending a stimulus and to clarify the effects of elaboration of a stimulus in relation to comprehension. The question to be addressed is whether the effects of elaboration are contingent on where or how comprehension occurs.Several studies have shown the importance for later recall of comprehending a stimulus. For example, Marks and Miller (1964) and Schulman (1974) showed that meaningful stimuli are better recalled than nonsensical stimuli. It was also demonstrated by Bransford and Johnson (1972) and Bransford and McCarrell (1974) that even potentially meaningful stimuli are better recalled in the presence of appropriate contextual information. Johnson, Doll, Bransford, and Lapinski (1974) showed that generally incomprehensible sentences were recalled less well if subjects received an inappropriate context or no context than if they received appropriate contexts.