Recognition and recall by children and adults as a function of variations in memory encoding instructions

Hall, James W.; Pierce, Jean W.

doi:10.3758/bf03196925

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Acoustic distractors elicited a significant number of false-recognition responses at both age levels, and semantic distractors (synonyms and antonyms) appeared to increase in potency with age. In 411 contrast, in a study by Hall and Pierce (1974) rhyme distractors produced no more false recognitions than did control words for either elementary school children or college students, while verbal associates were effective distractors at both age levels. The somewhat older age of the children tested in this study (a mixed group of third and fourth graders) could account for the failure to obtain a developmental interaction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Attribute dominance in memory development.

Means¹,

Rohwer²

1976

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seventy-two children, 36 each from the first and sixth grades, were given a70-item study list followed by a recognition test list of equal length. Items were line drawings of common objects accompanied by orally presented verbal labels. To provide an indication of the relative dominance of features encoded at the two ages, labels, pictures, and referents were manipulated in various combinations to form visual, semantic, and acoustic distractors, which were included in the test list. Significant numbers of false recognitions (as measured against false-recognition rates for control words) were elicited by visual distractors for both age groups, by acoustic distractors for first-grade subjects and by semantic distractors for sixth graders and first-grade girls. Implications of these findings for hypotheses concerning the role of visual representation and the developmental onset of semantic encoding are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 74%

Attribute dominance in memory development.

Means¹,

Rohwer²

1976

Developmental Psychology

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

Self Cite

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

“…However, retention of the kind of encoding act ivity indicates that Ss have available other information than frequency by which to make a recognition decision. Light & Selhorst (1971) and Hall & Pierce (1972) have reported that recognition memory for common words was more accurate after Ss received instructions to produce associations to items at the time of study than after Ss were instructed to repeat study items or received neutral instructions. These results are in apparent conflict with predictions derived from the frequency theory of recognition memory ( Freund, 1970).…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%