Beyond category sorting and pleasantness rating: Inducing relational and item-specific processing

Hodge, Milton H.; Otani, Hajime

doi:10.3758/bf03197277

Cited by 10 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to the control group, which was given the standard memory instructions, a second group was required to form an itemspecific image of each list item, and a third group was instructed to form relational images of list items interacting. Previous research has demonstrated that the item-specific imagery task promotes the encoding of item-specific information, whereas the relational imagery task leads to relational processing of the list items (see, e.g., Burns & Gold, 1999;Hodge & Otani, 1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Falsely recalled items are rich in item-specific information

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theorizing suggests that critical lures in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) procedure are often falsely remembered because they have received considerable relational processing (e.g., spreading activation or encoding of gist information). We used a repeated-testing paradigm to assess the amount of item-specific and relational processing given to the list items and the critical lures. Research has shown that items receiving itemspecific processing are more likely to be recovered across successive tests. They are also output more slowly but more steadily throughout the recall period. In two experiments, we manipulated the processing performed on list items and then used item gains and cumulative recall curves to assess the amount of item-specific and relational information encoded for both list items and lures. The results suggest that increasing the relational processing of list items increased item-specific processing of lures, whereas increasing item-specific processing of list items decreased item-specific processing of lures. We conclude that critical lures are typically rich in item-specific information, relative to list items.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Falsely recalled items are rich in item-specific information

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experiment 1B used weakly related lists in which study items were from broad, unspecified categories. Based on prior findings (Engelkamp, Biegelmann, & McDaniel, 1998; Hodge & Otani, 1996; Hunt & Einstein, 1981; McDaniel, Einstein, et al, 1988), memory was expected to be better with under complimentary (vs. redundant) processing conditions. In this way, complimentary processing was expected to serve as a type of EV in which the processing afforded by the study task and list structure do not overlap.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiment 1, participants studied the same set of items across two study blocks. In the first block, item-specific processing was induced either through mental-imagery (MI) or pleasantness-rating (PR) tasks, or relational processing was induced either through category-sorting (CS) or narrative-construction (NC) tasks (after Hodge & Otani, 1996). On the second block, the same words were studied again using either the same task as the first block ( repeated-task groups ), a different task that required the same type of processing ( variable-task group ), or a different task that required the other type of processing ( variable-processing groups ; see Table 1).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks

Huff

Bodner

2014

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether encoding variability facilitates memory is shown to depend on whether item-specific and relational processing are both performed across study blocks, and whether study items are weakly versus strongly related. Variable-processing groups studied a word list once using an item-specific task and once using a relational task. Variable-task groups’ two different study tasks recruited the same type of processing each block. Repeated-task groups performed the same study task each block. Recall and recognition were greatest in the variable-processing group, but only with weakly related lists. A variable-processing benefit was also found when task-based processing and list-type processing were complementary (e.g., item-specific processing of a related list) rather than redundant (e.g., relational processing of a related list). That performing both item-specific and relational processing across trials, or within a trial, yields encoding-variability benefits may help reconcile decades of contradictory findings in this area.

show abstract

“…This two-process explanation seems particularly useful for explaining the results of experiments that used non-scenario control conditions (e.g., pleasantness rating, imagery rating, generation), because many of these control conditions are known to induce primarily item-specific processing (e.g., Burns, Curti & Lavin, 1993;Einstein & Hunt, 1980;Hodge & Otani, 1996). It is not clear, however, why survival processing would produce more item-specific or more relational processing than control conditions involving other scenarios (e.g., moving, robbery, etc.).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Adaptive memory: The survival scenario enhances item-specific processing relative to a moving scenario

Burns

Hart

Griffith

et al. 2013

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007) found that retention of words rated for their relevance to survival is superior to that of words encoded under numerous other deep processing conditions. They suggested that our memory systems might have evolved to confer an advantage for survival-relevant information. Burns, Burns, and Hwang (2011) suggested a two-process explanation of the proximate mechanisms responsible for the survival advantage. Whereas most control tasks encourage only one type of processing, the survival task encourages both item-specific and relational processing. They found that when control tasks encouraged both types of processing, the survival processing advantage was eliminated. However, none of their control conditions included non-survival scenarios (e.g., moving, vacation, etc.), so it is not clear how this two-process explanation would explain the survival advantage when scenarios are used as control conditions. The present experiments replicated the finding that the survival scenario improves recall relative to a moving scenario in both a between-lists and within-list design and also provided evidence that this difference was accompanied by an item-specific processing difference, not a difference in relational processing. The implications of these results for several existing accounts of the survival processing effect are discussed.

show abstract

Beyond category sorting and pleasantness rating: Inducing relational and item-specific processing

Cited by 10 publications

References 33 publications

Falsely recalled items are rich in item-specific information

Falsely recalled items are rich in item-specific information

All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks

Adaptive memory: The survival scenario enhances item-specific processing relative to a moving scenario

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About