Dissociative effects of generation on item and order retention.

Nairne, James S.; Riegler, Gregory L.; Serra, Matt

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.702

Cited by 150 publications

(375 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

322

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The multifactor (Hirshman & Bjork, 1988;McDaniel, Wadill, & Einstein, 1988) and item-order accounts (McDaniel & Bugg, 2008;Nairne et al, 1991;Serra & Nairne, 1993) provide a more explicit theoretical approach. According to both accounts, memory for sentences that require greater effort-after-meaning benefits from enhanced elaboration of sentence content information, or item-specific encoding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of particular interest is the question of whether study conditions that are designed to elicit greater effort after meaning enhance memory for ambiguous sentences at the cost of impairing memory for the temporal order in which the sentences occur over the course of study. The item-order account of the generation effect (Nairne et al, 1991;Serra & Nairne, 1993), which has also been extended to successfully account for the word frequency, bizarreness, enactment, and perceptual interference effects (McDaniel & Bugg, 2008), proposes that variations in recall performance across experimental designs may be accounted for by a processing trade-off that occurs when an unusual encoding condition enhances processing of individual stimulus features at the expense of encoding temporal order information about the presentation of the events.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The influence of experimental design is by no means limited to the generation effect, for a host of other established memory phenomena, such as the word frequency, bizarreness, enactment, and perceptual interference effects, are modulated by experimental design, or list composition, as well (for a recent review, see McDaniel & Bugg, 2008). Recent studies have demonstrated that variations in experimental design can also reveal striking dissociations on measures of recall and recognition, as well as temporal order memory, providing converging evidence for the view that unusual encoding conditions, such as generation or bizarre imagery, attract superior processing of individual stimulus features at the cost of disrupting the encoding of relations among stimuli or other features of the current episodic context (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996;McDaniel & Bugg, 2008;Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991;Serra & Nairne, 1993). Thus, the manipulation of experimental design has become an important tool for testing theories of human memory.…”

Section: Effort After Meaning and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effort After Meaning and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Zaromb

Roediger

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present article, we examine a well-documented distinctiveness effect, that of orthographic distinctiveness, from the perspective of the item-order framework (McDaniel & Bugg, 2008;Nairne et al, 1991; see also DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996;Merritt, DeLosh, & McDaniel, 2006;Serra & Nairne, 1993). The orthographic distinctiveness effect displays the divergent pattern (in free recall) for mixed and pure lists described above and, consequently, might be understood under the lens of the item-order framework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociative effects of orthographic distinctiveness in pure and mixed lists: an item-order account

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We apply the item-order theory of list composition effects in free recall to the orthographic distinctiveness effect. The item-order account assumes that orthographically distinct items advantage item-specific encoding in both mixed and pure lists, but at the expense of exploiting relational information present in the list. Experiment 1 replicated the typical free recall advantage of orthographically distinct items in mixed lists and the elimination of that advantage in pure lists. Supporting the item-order account, recognition performances indicated that orthographically distinct items received greater itemspecific encoding than did orthographically common items in mixed and pure lists (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, order memory (input-output correspondence and sequential contiguity effects) was evident in recall of pure unstructured common lists, but not in recall of unstructured distinct lists (Experiment 1). These combined patterns, although not anticipated by prevailing views, are consistent with an item-order account.

show abstract

“…The paradigm employed in the following three experiments is a mixture of a methodology used to test order memory, reconstruction (Healy, 1974;Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991;Serra & Nairne, 1993), and of a wellestablished memory phenomenon, part-set cuing! inhibition (Slamecka, 1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Part—set cuing of order information: Implications for associative theories of serial order memory

Serra

Nairne

2000

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, the effect of cuing, at the point of test, on memory for order and/or position was investigated, Experiment 1 used a partial reconstruction of order task to demonstrate a mnemonic benefit of part-set cuing at the time of test; this result is used to argue that people may commonly use interitem associative information, rather than just position information, to help them remember serial order. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and simultaneously demonstrated the mnemonic detriment that part-set cuing typically produces in free recall. Experiment 3 showed that cues presented at test will either help or hinder reconstruction of order, depending on whether those cues are consistent or inconsistent with the original presentation order. The results of all three experiments are discussed within the framework of position and associative theories of serial order memory.The ability to remember occurrence information, particularly the position of items in time, is central to successful episodic remembering. When an item is forgotten from a memory list, it is not the item per se that is forgotten but, rather, the fact that the item occurred at a particular point in time. People do not forget the word elephant; they simply forget that elephant occurred on the memory list. Successful remembering, as a result, hinges on the precise encoding and retention ofposition information-that is, when and where the item occurred in a temporal-spatial window defined by the experiment and its setting (see Crowder, 1979;Estes, 1997;Nairne, 1991).Traditionally, memory researchers have looked at position memory, or memory for order, by using serial recall tasks, often in an immediate memory setting. A short list of items is presented and followed moments later by a test requiring one to recall the items from left to right in their exact temporal order ofpresentation. However, immediate serial recall suffers from a number of problems, including the fact that it typically confounds item and order memory; that is, participants need to remember not only the temporal positions that items occupied, but also the items themselves. To help solve this problem, relevant list items can be re-presented at test in a new random order, with the requirement that participants simply place them back into their original order of presentation (e.g.,

show abstract

Dissociative effects of generation on item and order retention.

Cited by 150 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Dissociative effects of orthographic distinctiveness in pure and mixed lists: an item-order account

Part—set cuing of order information: Implications for associative theories of serial order memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About