Incidental retention of recurring words presented during auditory monitoring tasks.

Abstract

Lists of 1,440 common English words were presented by a tape recorder to 120 students. The 5s were instructed to press a button whenever denned "target" words occurred. A group of 12 recurring words served as criterion items on subsequent tests of free recall and of recognition memory. Three experimental variables were examined: (a) learning conditions (incidental or intentional), (6) orienting task (stimulus examination or memory examination), and (c) repetition frequency (7, 14, or 28). Results confirmed the hypothesis that listening for semantically (i.e., categorically) defined target words would lead to greater incidental retention than would listening for a single target word (the word "Monday"). It was also observed that (a) intentional learners retained more than incidental learners, (b) repetition facilitated retention to a greater extent for the incidental learners, and (c) effectiveness of the orienting task interacted with the conditions of learning. These results were discussed in terms of the information-processing requirements of the orienting tasks.

Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it?

“…For example, it is reasonable to predict that if the instructions were presented at the beginning of a trial, jurors would be "better able to focus in on relevant evidence as it is being presented, and later remember it" (Sales et al, 1977). This prediction conforms to the finding that intentional learning is more effective than incidental learning (Dawley & Dawley, 1974;Duchastel & Brown, 1974;Kaplan & Rothkopf, 1973;Marton & Sandquist, 1972;Mechanic, 1962;Wolk, 1974;Zerdy, 1971). That is, people are able to be selective about what evidence they remember, if they know ahead of time what is and is not legally relevant.…”

Improving Comprehension for Jury Instructions

“…When given instructions as to what material they are expected to learn, people will learn it more effectively by concentrating on the relevant material and paying less attention to irrelevant material. This effect has been shown empirically with many different types of materials and in many situations (Dawley & Dawley, 1974;Duchastel & Brown, 1974;Kaplan & Rothkopf, 1973;Marton & Sandquist, 1972;Mechanic, 1962;Meunier, Kestner, Meunier, & Ritz, 1974;Wolk, 1974;Wolk & Du Cette, 1974;Postman & Adams, 1957;Zerdy, 1971). If jurors knew what is relevant to their verdict at the beginning of a trial, they would be better able to focus in on relevant evidence as it is being presented, and later remember it.…”