Independent effects of process and structure on encoding.

Hunt, R. Reed; Elliott, Joelene; Spence, Melanie J.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.5.4.339

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the orienting tasks had no reliable, differential effects on performance. This result has precedents in other studies that have found material effects that were independent of orienting tasks (e. g. , Hunt, Elliot, & Spence, 1979). Such results simply indicate that orienting tasks are not always successful in controlling encoding processes and that, in some cases, tobe-remembered material exerts an independent and substantial influence upon encoding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

On memory for metaphor

Marschark

Hunt

1985

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated how metaphors are represented in memory and the effects on memory of variables known to affect metaphor comprehension. Ten theoretically relevant dimensions were examined. In Experiments 1 and 2, free recall across a variety of orienting tasks was consistently and positively predicted by the rated imageability of metaphoric topics (sentence subjects) and the rated number of interpretations for each metaphor. The number of interpretations effect was reversed in the cued recall task of Experiment 3, as metaphors with fewer interpretations were remembered better. These and other results supported previous suggestions that memory for metaphor involves wholistic representations akin to metaphoric grounds. They also revealed consistent differences in the roles of several variables in comprehension and memory for metaphor.Metaphor is a challenge to psychologists. As one of the more enigmatic problems in language research, it raises two fundamental questions: How are these literally false assertions understood as acceptable? And how are they mentally represented? Although some progress has been made in understanding how metaphors are comprehended (e.g., Gildea & Glucksberg, 1983; Glucksberg, Gildea, & Bookin, 1982;Tourangeau & Sternberg, 1981; see also collections in Honeck & Hoffman, 1980;Ortony, 1979), the study of metaphor remains largely outside the mainstream of cognitive investigation. This isolation is likely due to the fact that theories of metaphor comprehension have not overlapped conceptually with more general theories oflanguage (H. Clark & E. Clark, 1977;Paivio & Begg, 1981). Many of the variables deemed important by metaphor researchers seem specific to figurative language, and few attempts have been made to integrate findings from metaphor studies into other areas of cognitive psychology. The present experiments, therefore, were designed to relate metaphor research to more traditional cognitive investigation while expanding current knowledge about both figurative language and memory in general.Most previous studies of metaphor have examined figurative comprehension or judgments of other metaphoric attributes. Several variables have been found to affect ease of interpretation and metaphor" goodness, " but possible relationships among these variables have not been explored beyond those predicted for specific pairs of variPortions of this research were supported by Grant I-ROI-NS20064-01 to Marc Marschark from the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and a grant from the Research Council of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The authors thank Michael Penland for his assistance in Experiments 2 and 3, Kim Young (Dunnabart) and Monica Wallace for conducting Experiment I, and Ian Begg for his many helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.Correspondence should be sent to Marc Marschark, Department of Psychology. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412. ables by particular theories (see Marschark...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

On memory for metaphor

Marschark

Hunt

1985

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the results are precisely what one would expect from a levels of processing approach that asserted that encoding processes are the only important determinant of memory, we noted earlier that there was substantial empirical evidence to suggest that semantic attributes of the study material could still influence recall even under low-level orienting tasks (Hunt et al, 1979;Nelson et al, 1979;Till & Jenkins, 1973). In the current experiments this is clearly not the case.…”

Section: Similarity and Long-term Memory For Order 19supporting

confidence: 70%

“…This prediction, while theoretically sound, is at odds with empirical evidence that indicates that semantic attributes still affect performance after low-level processing (Hunt, Elliot & Spence, 1979;Nelson, Walling & McEvoy, 1979;Till & Jenkins, 1973). …”

Section: Similarity and Long-term Memory For Ordermentioning

confidence: 96%

The Effect of Item and Relational Processing on Incidental Long-term Memory for Order

Tehan¹,

Fallon²,

Randall³

1997

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paivio's explanation is similar to that devised by Hunt et al (1979) for a different set of tasks. Independent of the explanation favored, what is clear for processing studies is that orienting tasks involving ratings are not as effective controllers of processing as might be expected.…”

Section: The Free-recall Clustermentioning

confidence: 84%

Memorability as a measure of processing: A unit analysis of prose and list learning.

Rubin¹

1985

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe percentage of subjects recalling each unit in a list or prose passage is considered as a dependent measure. When the same units are recalled in different tasks, processing is assumed to be the same; when different units are recalled, processing is assumed to be different. Two collections of memory tasks are presented, one for lists and one for prose. The relations found in these two collections are supported by an extensive reanalysis of the existing prose memory literature.The same set of words were learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Included were intentional free-recall tasks, incidental free recall following lexical decision, and incidental free recall following ratings of orthographic distinctiveness and emotionality. Although the nine free-recall tasks varied widely with regard to the amount of recall, the relative probability of recall for the words was very similar among the tasks. Imagery encoding and recognition produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. Similar results were obtained with a prose passage. A story was learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Eight free-recall tasks, which varied with respect to incidental or intentional learning, retention interval, and the age of the subjects, produced similar relative probabilities of recall, whereas recognition and prompted recall produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks.A review of the prose literature was undertaken to test the generality of these results. Analysis of variance is the most common statistical procedure in this literature. If the relative probability of recall of units varied across conditions, a units by condition interaction would be expected. For the 12 studies that manipulated retention interval, an average of 21% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of retention interval, 17% by the main effect of units, and only 2% by the retention interval by units interaction. Similarly, for the 12 studies that varied the age of the subjects, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of age, 32% by the main effect of units, and only 1% by the interaction of age by units. Moreover, although there was enough statistical power so that the unit main effects, which used the same error term as the interactions, were all significant at the .001 level, only half of the age by units interactions were significant at the .05 level. Unlike studies varying retention interval and the age of the subjects, studies varying the perspective of the reader at encoding often produced interactions larger than their main effects.Similar results were obtained for the list learning and prose studies, suggesting a continuity between these two domains. In particular, the relative probability of recall changed little when retention interval, age of subject, or depth of processing changed in standard ways. This similarity among th...

show abstract

Independent effects of process and structure on encoding.

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

On memory for metaphor

On memory for metaphor

The Effect of Item and Relational Processing on Incidental Long-term Memory for Order

Memorability as a measure of processing: A unit analysis of prose and list learning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About