Elaboration, organization, and the self-reference effect in memory.

Abstract

Relating information to the self (self-referent encoding) has been shown to produce better recall than purely semantic encoding. This finding has been interpreted as demonstrating that self-reference produces a more elaborate memory trace than semantic encoding, and it has been cited frequently as evidence that the self is one of the most highly elaborated structures in memory. The experiments reported in this article challenge this interpretation of the self-reference effect by demonstrating that self-referent and semantic encodings produce virtually identical free recall levels if they are first equated for the amount of organization they encourage. On the basis of our findings we conclude the following: (a) Organization, not elaboration, is responsible for the superior recall performance obtained when information is encoded self-referentially, and (b) organization is not a necessary component of selfreferent encoding and can be orthogonally varied within self-referent and semantic encoding tasks. Finally, we discuss how a single-factor theory based on organization can account for many of the selfreferent recall findings reported in the literature. One of the most influential approaches to the study of human memory has been the Depth of Processing (DOP) framework proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). These investigators suggested that retention of a memory trace is determined by the nature of encoding operations carried out on stimulus material. Deep, meaningful analyses such as those prompted by semantic encoding tasks allow formation of a more durable trace than do shallow, structural analyses of the sound or appearance of stimuli. Until 1977, semantic encoding was commonly considered the optimal way of achieving good retention (e.g.

Recall of congruent information in the self-reference task

“…Even if a subject uses some counterexample reasoning, the mental cuing approach suggests generally better recall for "yes" responses than for "no" responses . However, some researchers have predicted equal recall of "yes" and "no" target items based on the organization of the list into "yes" and "no" categories in memory (Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986) . Yet, from the mental-euing point of view, this explanation is flawed because there are only two category cues in memory, representing the "yes" and "no" categories, and they have too many target items associated with them to be effective .…”

“…In spite of this theoretical expectation, some researchers did not find superior recall for items judged as selfdescriptive (Kendzierski, 1980;Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986). In a review of relevant research, Higgins and Bargh (1987) concluded that the great majority of studies found…”

The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis.

“…Although many subsequent studies found superior recall following self-reference (SR; e.g., Bellezza, 1984;Kuiper & Rogers, 1979;Maki & McCaul, 1985), other research suggest that the SRE was not so robust. Specifically, other kinds of non-SR processing appeared to promote memory as well as or better than SR (e.g., Bellezza & Hoyt, 1992;Keenan & Baillet, 1980;Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986;Lord, 1980). These conflicting study findings led Higgins and Bargh (1987) to conclude that "self-reference is neither necessary nor suffi-cient for memory of input to be facilitated in comparison to a semantic orientation task" (p. 392).…”

“…These conflicting study findings led Higgins and Bargh (1987) to conclude that "self-reference is neither necessary nor suffi-cient for memory of input to be facilitated in comparison to a semantic orientation task" (p. 392). Moreover, after 2 decades, researchers seem divided between those who are willing to attribute the SRE to special mnemonic properties of the self (e.g., Maki & McCaul, 1985;Rogers et al, 1977) and those who are not (e.g., Brown, Keenan, & Potts, 1986;Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986).…”

“…The respective roles of elaboration and organization in the SRE have been discussed by several researchers (e.g., A. G. Greenwald & Banaji, 1989;Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986;Klein & Loftus, 1988). In general, these researchers emphasized the role of ordinary memory processes, which leads to the conclusion that there is nothing special or unique about SR that renders it more effective as a mnemonic device than other encoding tasks.…”