Choosing words at the study phase: The self‐choice effect on memory from the viewpoint of connective processing¹

Abstract

The self-choice effect, that is the superior memory performance observed when participants are allowed to choose the item at the study phase than when they are not (lack of choice), has been explained by the encoding-strategy hypothesis (Takahashi, 1997). This hypothesis distinguishes between organizational processing, which focuses upon the relationship between chosen items, and item-specific processing, which itself focuses on the elements that make the chosen item distinctive. The encoding-strategy hypothesis predicts that the ability for the successive recall of chosen items can be affected by organized list (Experiment 1). The results of our experiments ran counter to the prediction and were interpreted by a new concept called connective processing, which would emphasize the relationship of paired items. Connective processing was examined through orienting tasks (Experiment 2). The results were more suitably interpreted by connective than organizational processing.

The Role of Word Choice and Criterion on Intentional Memory

“…However, the present results indicate that self-choice eff ects are found only for the self-reference criterion, and not the metamemory criterion. Neither the multiple-cue hypothesis ( Watanabe, 2001 ) nor the connection processing hypothesis ( Hirano & Ukita, 2003 ) predict the present results. Both these hypotheses predict that the self-choice eff ects should be found in the chosen words as well as non-chosen words.…”

“…In the present study, the very low overall recall performance for non-chosen words likely occurs because they were not integrated into any cognitive structure ( Craik & Tulving, 1975 ;Toyota, 1996Toyota, , 2013. Hirano and Ukita (2003 ) showed that the more a chosen word in a pair is recalled, the more the paired non-chosen word is also recalled. Although they emphasized connective processing, the relationship between the two words in each pair might facilitate the integration of the chosen word as well as the non-chosen word.…”

“…The three other hypotheses off ered for explaining the self-choice eff ect are the motivation hypothesis ( Perlmuter, et al ., 1971 ), the multiple-cue hypothesis ( Watanabe, 2001 ), the motivation hypothesis ( Perlmuter & Eads, 1998 ), and the connection processing hypothesis ( Hirano & Ukita, 2003 ). None of them can easily explain the present results.…”

“…Activation is caused by the act of choosing a word, because it requires comparing the words (chosen and non-chosen) with each other and making a decision ( Soraci, Franks, Bransford, Chechechile, Belli, Carr, et al ., 1994 ). A fourth hypothesis was suggested by Hirano and Ukita (2003 ), who proposed the connection processing hypothesis. This suggests that self-choice facilitates connective processing: the more a chosen word in a pair is recalled, the more the paired non-chosen word is also recalled, and from this arises the self-choice eff ect.…”

The self‐choice effects on memory and individual differences in emotional intelligence

“…Furthermore, this study used a special procedure, that is, the participants were presented with a cue sentence, for example, an animal living on the savannah, and were asked to choose one of the alternatives, for example, “elephant, lion, zebra.” Because the cue sentence has common information related to the alternatives (the chosen and the nonchosen words), the cue sentences may have facilitated connective processing between the chosen and the nonchosen words, which in turn led to better retention of both types of words. Hirano and Ukita (2003) focused on this connective processing, and proposed the importance of the connection processing between chosen and nonchosen words. They found that the self‐choice condition led to better recall of paired words (recall of both the chosen word and the nonchosen word in each pair) than the forced‐choice condition.…”