Memory for activities: Adult age differences and intentionality.

Kausler, Donald H.; Hakami, Malekeh K.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.19.6.889

Cited by 72 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas the former type of information is supposed to be strategically encoded, the latter type of information is supposed to be acquired automatically (cf. Kausler, 1983;Kausler & Hakami, 1983).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in recall patterns between subject-performed tasks (SPI's) and verbal materials have been interpreted in terms of SPI's being nonstrategic or automatically encoded. In a series of three experiments, we tested this notion by comparing free recall of SPI's and sentences in conditions of'(I) nondivided versus divided attention for organizable items, (2)organizable versus nonorganizable items, and (3) nondivided versus divided attention for nonorganizable items. It was found that recall of both SPI's and sentences decreased in conditions of divided attention. A decrease in recall was also observed for both types of material when nonorganizable as compared to organizable materials were used. In addition, the degree of clustering was higher for SPI's than for sentences. These data suggest that there is a strategic component involved in the encoding of SPI's. We propose that the action elements of SPI's (e.g., motor features, shape, texture) are automatically encoded, whereas the verbal component is strategically encoded. It is emphasized that organization is an encoding strategy critical to SPI' recall.An experimental task for memory research was introduced by Cohen in 1981. In this task, labeled subjectperformed task (SPT), subjects are instructed to perform a series of miniature actions for a subsequent memory test. SPTs involve either (I) one or two objects provided by the experimenter (e. g., "bounce the ball, " "sharpen the pencil") or (2) no objects at all (e.g., "clap your hands," "snap your fingers"). Using this task, Cohen (1981Cohen ( , 1983, Cohen and Bean (1983), and Cohen and Stewart (1982) observed several deviations from established memory laws that are valid for verbal materials. First, Cohen (1981) demonstrated that the normally obtained effect of manipulations regarding levels of processing on recall of words (e.g., Craik & Tulving, 1975) did not apply to recall of SPTs. A second difference between verbal recall and SPT recall is that the reliable primacy effect associated with free recall of verbal materials has not appeared in SPT recall (Cohen, 1981;Cohen & Bean, 1983;Cohen & Stewart, 1982). Cohen (1981) explained this phenomenon as being due to the presence of active memorization strategies (rehearsal) leading to a primacy effect for memory of words, and an absence of these strategies in encoding of SPTs, resulting in an absence of primacy. A third difference relates to the developmental effects typically found in recall of verbal materials. Whereas significant differences are usually obtained in recall, for example, of words as a function of increased age, Cohen and Stewart (1982) found this untrue for SPT recall among 9-, II-, and 13-year-old children.On the basis of these differences between verbal recall and SPT recall, Cohen (1981) suggested that the encoding mechanisms in "verbal memory models" are of little importance in SPT recall. This was supported by the fact that although subjects in the Cohen (1981) study reported active attempts to memorize the words (usually by means o...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kausler, 1983;Kausler & Hakami, 1983), we argue that the verbal component of SPTs, similar to that of verbal memory tasks, is subject to strategic encoding operations. There are two kinds of evidence in favor of this assumption.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the end of the testing session, the subjects were incidentally asked to recall the tasks that they had performed during the testing session (Kausler & Hakami, 1983). The number of activities correctly recalled was used as dependent measure.…”

Section: Episodic Memory Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in episodic memory

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between gender and memory has been largely neglected by research, despite occasional studies reporting gender differences in episodic memory performance. The present study examined potential gender differences in episodic memory, semantic memory, primary memory, and priming. Five hundred thirty women and 470 men, randomly sampled from the city of Umea, Sweden, 35-80 years of age, participated in the study. There were no differences between men and women with regard to age or education, or on a measure of global intellectual functioning. As has been demonstrated previously, men outperformed women on a visuospatial task and women outperformed men on tests of verbal fluency. In addition, the results demonstrated that women consistently performed at a higher level than did men on the episodic memory tasks, although there were no differences between men and women on the tasks assessing semantic memory, primary memory, or priming. The women's higher level of performance on the episodic memory tasks could not be fully explained by their higher verbal ability.In 1974, Maccoby and Jacklin published their highly cited work on gender differences in various human abilities and functions. They concluded that girls have greater verbal ability than boys do; that boys excel in visuospatial and mathematical ability; and that males are more aggressive than females. However, Maccoby and Jacklin rejected the hypothesis of gender differences in learning and memory. Since then, virtually no systematic research has been conducted on potential gender differences in memory.In the area oflearning and memory, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) categorized the studies that they reviewed in terms of conditioning, discrimination learning, pairedassociate learning, oddity problems, probability learning, learning through modeling, incidental learning, and memory. In retrospect, however, if one applies the current, widely used model of five separate but interacting

show abstract

“…Much of this research has centered on the memory for past activities (e.g., Anderson, 1984;Backman, Nilsson, & Chalom, 1986;Cohen, 1981Cohen, , 1983Johnson, 1988;Kausler & Hakami, 1983;Koriat, Ben-Zur, & Sheffer, 1988). However, there are many instances in everyday life in which what we have to remember is not an act that we have already accomplished but one that has to be performed in the future.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the nature of the representation underlying memory for future tasks such as calling the doctor or buying milk? If this representation consists of a verbal instruction that is translated into action at the time ofretrieval, then memory should be better when tested via verbatim recall of the instruction than when tested via actual performance. Three experiments rejected this possibility, indicating better memory for a perform mode of report than for a recall mode of report. This was true in Experiment 1 in which subjects saw aseries of verbal instructions (e.g., "move the eraser," "lift the cup," "touch the ashtray"), with advance information regarding the mode of report required during testing. In Experiment 2, the advance cue was valid only in 75% of the trials. Memory depended more heavily on the expected mode of report than on the actual mode of report, suggesting that the perform superiority is due to processes that occur during encoding. In Experiment 3, subjects learned 20 phrases depicting minitasks. More tasks were remembered by subjects tested via performance than by subjects tested via verbatim recall. A second part of Experiment 3 also indicated superior memory when aperform test was expected, regardless of which mode of report was actually required. The results were compared with the finding that subject-performed tasks are better remembered than are their verbal instructions, which suggests that the representation underlying memory for future assignments may take advantage ofthe imaginal-enactive properties ofthe envisaged acts. Other possible differences between memory for to-be-recalled tasks and memory for to-be-performed tasks are discussed.In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the study of memory for action. Much of this research has centered on the memory for past activities (e.g., Anderson, 1984;Backman, Nilsson, & Chalom, 1986;Cohen, 1981Cohen, , 1983Johnson, 1988;Kausler & Hakami, 1983;Koriat, Ben-Zur, & Sheffer, 1988). However, there are many instances in everyday life in which what we have to remember is not an act that we have already accomplished but one that has to be performed in the future. In some instances, the information pertaining to future acts must be retained for only a short interval. For example, when preparing a new dish on the basis of a written recipe, a person often has to retain aseries of specific directions in short-term memory before carrying them out. A sirnilar process occurs when one consults an operating manual in an attempt to install or operate new equipment. In other instances, memory for to-be-performed activities must extend over longer time intervals, as when a waiter must rememberThe study was conducted at the Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, University of Haifa. We are grateful to Alan Baddeley, Johannes Engelkamp, Margaret Intons-Peterson, and Norman Slamecka for their comments on an earlier version. We wish to thank Shiri Pearlman, Hamutal Pines, and Michal Sion for their help in setting up and conducting ...

show abstract

Memory for activities: Adult age differences and intentionality.

Cited by 72 publications

References 15 publications

New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events

New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events

Gender differences in episodic memory

Encoding information for future action: Memory for to-be-performed tasks versus memory for to-be-recalled tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About