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

Abstract

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...

One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention.

“…386-387) Anderson and Schooler (1991), reanalyzing data from Hellyer (1962) and Krueger (1929), arrived at a similar conclusion. Rubin (1985) extended this finding to memory for prose. The rank order of the units of text from most to least likely to be recalled was constant over a range of times from immediate to 3-month recall.…”

“…Loftus's horizontal difference proposal has advantages, but these appear naturally only if the retention function is an exponential, which may or may not occur. Similarly, we may need to divide our function into one component for initial learning and one for retention (Bogartz, 1990b, Rubin, 1985,into one component that reflects the nature of the retrieval task and one for retention, or in any of a host of other ways depending on the differences observed across conditions. Thus, it is most efficient to wait until the results are examined to make such decisions.…”

“…At a more abstract level, it is about the role of theory and data in psychological research. Can we most rapidly advance psychology as a science by developing theories at the level that commonly fills psychological journals such as this one, or should we first try to describe phenomena that could constrain theories by establishing robust, preferably quantitative, regularities (Rubin, 1985(Rubin, , 1989(Rubin, , 1995? A balance between these alternatives is needed, and here we argue that to obtain such a balance more description is needed.…”

Emotional intensity predicts autobiographical memory experience

“…Twenty-seven participants were included in the anxiouspositive group, and 32 were included in the anxiousnegative group. The number of participants responding to The main analyses in Experiment 1 were conducted using the 21 emotions as the units of analysis, rather than the 71 participants (see Clark, 1973, andRubin, 1985, for discussions of this strategy). We did this in order to display each emotion as a separate point in the figure and the tables and because averaging over emotions is counter to theoretical perspectives that claim that every emotion, or at least every basic emotion, is unique (Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1992;Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1987).…”

The Beginnings of Expertise for Ballads

“…This is often summarized as experts find "meaningful" patterns whereas novices do not. But as will be shown here, meaningful must be taken to mean task- (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977) and stimulus-appropriate (Rubin, 1985) rather than deep or semantic.Memory expertise requires practice, but formal teaching is not needed. Motivated subjects can acquire the skills through trial and error attempts, much like Harlow's (1949) monkeys.…”