Recognition memory of spatial location information: Another failure to support automaticity

Abstract

Hasher and Zacks (1979) claimed that spatial location information is automatically encoded. Evaluation of the empirical basis for this claim, however, casts doubt on some of the evidence for the automaticity position. This evaluation led to four experiments in which five criteria for testing the automaticity of cognitive processes were examined using a recognition task. Results of these experiments clearly show that recognition memory for spatial location information is influenced by intention, age of subjects, competing task loads, practice, and individual differences. The reported results, which extend those reported by Naveh-Benjamin (1987) for spatial location recall memory, are at odds with the claim that memory for spatial location information is exclusively mediated by automatic encoding processes. The concept of automaticity and the appropriateness of the criteria suggested for testing the automaticity of cognitive processes are discussed in light of the current results and recent findings on other features ofthe environment (e.g., frequency of occurrence) previously claimed to be automatically encoded.Many studies in recent years have been conducted to identify automatic processes in cognition and to specify the details of their operation. Hasher and Zacks (1979) and their colleagues have argued that some basic operating characteristics of the information processing system support the inevitable memory encoding of some fundamental aspects of experience. Among them are frequency of occurrence, spatial location, and temporal order information. According to these researchers, these aspects continually register in memory at an optimal level.Hasher and Zacks (1979) suggested six criteria that must be jointly satisfied to establish that a process, aspect, or attribute of experience is automatically encoded. According to these criteria, encoding of frequency, temporal order, and spatial location information should not be affected by intention, age, and simultaneous processing demands, or by practice and individual differences. The aspect of the environment most studied for its automaticity is the frequency with which events occur. Hasher and Zacks, among others, have amassed evidence about all the above-mentioned criteria for frequency coding. As a result, until recently, the claim for the automaticity of encoding frequency of occurrence seemed to have solid support .Two other aspects of the environment-spatial location and temporal order information-were thought to be en-I would like to thankEynat Cohen and Orly Hochwald for their help in data collection and analysis. I would also like to thank Robert R. Greene, Mary Joscelyn, Denise C. Park, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Moshe Naveh-Benjamin, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, Beer-Sheva 84120, Israel.coded automatically, although they were not as thoroughly investigated as frequency of occurrence. Although Hash...

The effects of rehearsal on temporal order coding

“…These results do not support claims for automaticity of frequency, spatial, or temporal order information. As discussed elsewhere (e.g., Naveh-Benjamin, 1987, 1988, these results challenge the automaticity of these aspects of information processing as suggested by Hasher and Zacks (1979), as well as the criteria for automaticity and their underlying assumptions.…”

Object location memory: The interplay of multiple representations

“…In this study, we focus only on those allocentric representations, including screen-based (the location of an object relative to the computer screen), landmark-based (the location of an object relative to the landmarks), and object-based (the location of an object relative to other objects) ones. As we will demonstrate in our experiments, it seems that screen-based representations can be automatically encoded and maintained in the study phase, due to the steady presence of the computer screen (see Naveh-Benjamin, 1987, 1988. In addition, since an object is always presented along with the two landmarks in the study phase and participants are explicitly instructed to encode the locations of objects relative to the landmarks, landmark-based representations can also be constructed in the study phase.…”

Conscious and unconscious influences of memory for object location

“…Numerous studies have demonstrated that such information is remembered at greater than chance levels under incidental learning instructions (e.g., Light & Zelinski, 1983;Naveh-Benjamin, 1988). A plausible explanation for this pattern of results is that some aspects of location information are encoded automatically but, like other kinds of information, memory for location improves if elaborative encoding processes are employed.…”