Instruction effects in recognition memory

Zechmeister, Eugene B.; Gude, Chris

doi:10.3758/bf03333375

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given any number of activities that do result in integrated units of this kind, subjects may then rely on activity discriminations in performing subsequent recognitions. If, on the other hand, the rehearsed unit is not well integrated, activity discriminations (and, hence, subsequent recognitions) are likely to suffer, as was found in Zechmeister and Gude's (1974) rehearsal condition wherein subjects were instructed to visualize the spelling of each word (see also .…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

More about rehearsal strategy effects in children's discrimination learning.

Levin¹,

Ghatala²

1976

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recently reported study, the functional components of imagery and vocalization strategies in children's verbal discrimination learning were examined, following the combined experimental/correlational logic of Underwood. The present research extends those results to a strategy that (unlike imagery and vocalization) has a positive influence on subjects' simple frequency discriminations. It was found that for such a strategy, both subjects' ability to discriminate frequency as well as their ability to discriminate their previous rehearsal activity are positively correlated with discrimination learning performance. A number of theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.This study represents a continuation of research into the functional components of rehearsal strategies in children's verbal discrimination learning. Recently, Ghatala, Levin, and Subkoviak (1975) demonstrated that the adoption of Underwood's (1975) individual differences crucible can provide a powerful analytical tool with which to attack this problem. In the initial study, Ghatala, Levin, and Subkoviak utilized this methodological technique to test three rival hypotheses concerning the mechanism(s) underlying the known facilitative effects of imagery and pronunciation strategies in children's verbal discrimination learning (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second hypothesis advanced was that strategies result in subjects encoding information concerning their rehearsal activity during study (cf. Zechmeister & Gude, 1974). This information (which, following Underwood's, 1969, "memory attribute" arguments, we term an "activity" attribute) is then called upon during the test instead of frequency information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

More about rehearsal strategy effects in children's discrimination learning.

Levin¹,

Ghatala²

1976

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As and Freund (1970). Although Underwood (1969) had Postman has cautioned, "in the analysis of organiza-first proposed that the verbal associative attribute tional processes, and in particular of the conditions of generally was useful only for retrieval, several recent retrieval, it is not safe to assume that the same principles studies (e.g., Hall & Pierce, 1974;Zechmeister & Gude, govern the processing and recall of categorized and 1974) have suggested that verbal associative information of non-categorized lists" (Postman, 1972, p. 17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in encoding for free recall vs. recognition

1976

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined effects of test expectancy on memory for relatively unrelated words. In Experiment I, where preliminary recall or recognition practice was given, both recall and recognition were superior when the subjects expected and had practiced for recall. Free study led to better recall and recognition than paced presentation, but did not interact with test expectancy. Experiment II demonstrated that recall was better for subjects expecting a recall vs. a recognition test in the absence of preliminary practice. In Experiment III all subjects practiced both recall and recognition prior to presentation of the critical list. Study time also was varied. With longer study, recall was better when a recall test was expected, with no test expectancy effect on recognition. There were no appreciable expectancy effects with the short study period. Self-reports and other data suggested that the critical encoding differences produced by test expectancy manipulation were quantitative in nature.

show abstract