Reconstructive and reproductive processes in memory.

Hasher, Lynn; Griffin, Mary T. Quinn

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.4.318

Cited by 122 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results add to the opposition to this view (Alba & Hasher, 1983;Hasher & Griffin, 1978;Rubin, 1977). Detailed analysis of the recall protocols provides an indication of the conditions under which surface structure properties can be very important.…”

Section: Memory For Beatles' Lyrics 213contrasting

confidence: 56%

Memorabeatlia: A naturalistic study of long-term memory

Hyman

Rubin

1990

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seventy-six undergraduates were given the titles and first lines of Beatles' songs and asked to recall the songs. Seven hundred and four different undergraduates were cued with one line from each of 25 Beatles' songs and asked to recall the title. The probability of recalling a line was best predicted by the number of times a line was repeated in the song and how early the line first appeared in the song. The probability of cuing to the title was best predicted by whether the line shared words with the title. Although the subjects recalled only 21% of the lines, there were very few errors in recall, and the errors rarely violated the rhythmic, poetic, or thematic constraints of the songs. Acting together, these constraints can account for the near verbatim recall observed. Fourteen subjects, who transcribed one song, made fewer and different errors than the subjects who had recalled the song, indicating that the errors in recall were not primarily the result of errors in encoding.

show abstract

Section: Memory For Beatles' Lyrics 213contrasting

confidence: 56%

Memorabeatlia: A naturalistic study of long-term memory

Hyman

Rubin

1990

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One reason this is an issue is that there is evidence that how one initially evaluates an event ultimately influences one's memory for that event (e.g., Dodson & Johnson, 1993;Hasher & Griffin, 1978;Lindsay & Johnson, 1989). Such an effect is consistent with the misleading-suggestion or misinformation effect (e.g., Lindsay & Johnson, 1989;Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978), or the verbal overshadowing effect (Dodson, Johnson, & Schooler, 1997;Fallshore & Schooler, 1995;Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Expectancy effects in memory for melodies.

Schmuckler

1997

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments explored the relation between melodic expectancy and melodic memory. In Experiment 1, listeners rated the degree to which different endings confirmed their expectations for a set of melodies. After providing these expectancy ratings, listeners received a recognition memory test in which they discriminated previously heard melodies from new melodies. Recognition memory in this task positively correlated with perceived expectancy, and was related to the estimated tonal coherence of these melodies. Experiment 2 extended these results, demonstrating better recognition memory for high expectancy melodies, relative to medium and low expectancy melodies. This experiment also observed asymmetrical memory confusions as a function of perceived expectancy. These findings fit with a model of musical memory in which schematically central events are better remembered than schematically peripheral events.The generation of expectations has been recognized as a central factor in listeners' perceptions of music. Simply defined, "expectation 11 refers to the anticipation of upcoming information based on past and current information. The concept of expectancy has traditionally received, and continues to receive, a great deal of attention from both a music-theoretic (e.g., Meyer, 1956Meyer, ,1965Narmour, 1989Narmour, , 1990Narmour, ,1992 and psychological viewpoint (e.g., Bharucha, 1987Bharucha, , 1994Carlsen, 1981Carlsen, , 1982Carlsen, Divenyi, & Taylor, 1970;Cuddy & Lunney, 1995;Dowling, 1994;Jones, 1976Jones, , 1981Jones, , 1982Jones, , 1990Krumhansl, 1995;Schellenberg, 1996Schellenberg, ,1997Schmuckler, 1989Schmuckler, ,1990Schmuckler & Boltz, 1994;Unyk & Carlsen, 1987).Given this interest, it is not surprising that expectation has been found to play a critical role in many aspects of musical processing. One such area involves listeners' judgments of, and responses to, musical passages. For example, Schmuckler (1989) had listeners provide goodness-of-fit ratings for a set of continuations of melodic, harmonic, and combined melodic-harmonic passages. These studies uncovered systematic variation in listeners' judgments of these continuations, with some endings receiving high expectancy ratings, whereas other endings received relatively low expectancy ratings. Additionally, these studies demonstrated that expectancies were predictable from various music-theoretic and perceptual/cognitive principles of pattern organization. Similar results have been observed by Cuddy and Lunney (1995), Krumhansl (1995), andSchellenberg (1996), in their tests of Narmour's (1990Narmour's ( ,1992) implication-realization model. Together, these findings suggest that judgments of a musical event vary with the perceived expectancy of that passage, with expectations quantifiable on the basis of a range of factors.A second area in which expectancies play a role in musical perception is the processing and encoding of musical information. For example, Bharucha and colleagues (Bharucha & Stoeckig, 1986, 1987Tekman & Bharucha, 1992) de...

show abstract

“…The findings just cited, and others described below, all used recognition paradigms. Although some prior studies have reported false recall (e.g., Brewer, 1977;Hasher & Griffin, 1979;Spiro, 1980), these researchers used prose materials. Second, we showed that subjects actually claimed to remember most of the falsely recognized events as having occurred on the list.…”

Section: Relation To Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.

Roediger¹,

McDermott²

1995

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

2,808

221

3,744

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments (modeled after J. Deese's 1959 study) revealed remarkable levels of false recall and false recognition in a list learning paradigm. In Experiment 1, subjects studied lists of 12 words (e.g., bed, rest, awake); each list was composed of associates of 1 nonpresented word (e.g., sleep). On immediate free recall tests, the nonpresented associates were recalled 40% of the time and were later recognized with high confidence. In Experiment 2, a false recall rate of 55% was obtained with an expanded set of lists, and on a later recognition test, subjects produced false alarms to these items at a rate comparable to the hit rate. The act of recall enhanced later remembering of both studied and nonstudied material. The results reveal a powerful illusion of memory: People remember events that never happened.

show abstract

Reconstructive and reproductive processes in memory.

Cited by 122 publications

References 42 publications

Memorabeatlia: A naturalistic study of long-term memory

Memorabeatlia: A naturalistic study of long-term memory

Expectancy effects in memory for melodies.

Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About