Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery.

Wollen, Keith A.; Cox, Steven D.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.7.5.386

Cited by 45 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, it appeared that our category cued recall test benefited the common items more than bizarre items under most conditions. This finding is not an isolated phenomenon since other studies have also obtained this paradoxical effect (see Pra Baldi, De Beni, Cornoldi, & Cavedon, 1985;Wollen & Cox, 1981a, 1981b. As a possible explanation, some authors have proposed a retrieval-based account.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Ageing and Secondary-Distinctiveness-Based Effects: The Orthographic Distinctiveness Effect is More Robust than the Bizarreness Effect

Gounden

Nicolas

2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences related to ageing were investigated in two cases of secondary-distinctiveness-based effects: the bizarreness effect and the orthographic distinctiveness effect. A secondary distinctiveness effect means that items that are unusual compared to one's general knowledge stored in permanent memory are better remembered than common items. Experiment 1 confirmed that ageing diminishes the facilitative effects of bizarreness in a mixed list design with equal numbers of bizarre and common images. We suggest that the impaired bizarreness effect in older adults (above age 70) may be due to reduced attentional resources, since no bizarreness effect was observed for younger adults in the divided attention condition. Experiment 2 studied the orthographic distinctiveness effect in ageing for the first time. Contrary to our expectations, an orthographic distinctiveness effect was observed for all participants including older adults and younger adults in a divided attention condition. Because reduced attentional resources due to normal ageing or to experimental manipulation did not impact the facilitative effects of orthographic distinctiveness, our findings suggest that the orthographic distinctiveness effect may be mediated by more automatic processing.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Ageing and Secondary-Distinctiveness-Based Effects: The Orthographic Distinctiveness Effect is More Robust than the Bizarreness Effect

Gounden

Nicolas

2012

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, processing time may not be the best measure of attention. Although Cox and Wollen (1981) and Wollen and Cox (1981) equated processing time with attention in their explanation of the bizarreness effect, earlier models that included reference to attentional mechanisms suggested that attention could be measured in a different way. For example, Merry (1980) and Merry and Graham (1978) described attention not in terms of processing time but in terms of cognitive-resource allocation-that is, they suggested (a) that comprehension of bizarre information requires more cognitive resources (not merely more time) than does comprehension of common information and (b) that the increased effort explains the memory advantage for bizarre items relative to common items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Tests of a Cognitive-Resource-Allocation Account of the Bizarreness Effect

Worthen

Garcia-Rivas

Green

et al. 2000

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined the role of cognitive-resource allocation in obtaining the often reported memory advantage for bizarre relative to common information by using the secondary-task method in 4 experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, they investigated the relationship between differences in cognitive resource allocation during comprehension and in recall for common and bizarre information. In Experiments 3 and 4, they investigated the same relationship but measured cognitive-resource allocation during imaging rather than during comprehension. Although bizarre items required more time to comprehend and to image than did common items, the differences were not reliable predictors of the recall differences between item types. Furthermore, analyses of response latencies to a secondary task provided no compelling evidence in support of a cognitive-resource-allocation explanation of bizarreness effects. Implications for the development of a comprehensive model of the influence of bizarreness on memory are discussed.

show abstract

“…of associated word pairs have suggested that bizarre images are no more effective than normal images (Andreoff & Yarmey, 1976;Bergfeld ci al. 1982;Kroll, Sehepeler, & Angin, 1986;O'Brien & Wolford, 1982;Riefer & Rouder, 1992;Webber & Marshall, 1978), or indeed than bizarre images are less effective than normal images (Campos & Pérez, 1997;Kroll, Jaeger, & Dornfest, 1992;Pra Baldi, De Beni, Comoldi, & Cavedon, 1985;Riefer & LaMay, 1998;Wollen & Cox, 1981a, 1981b). Bizarre images are rarely more effective flan normal images, unless mixed lists are used and retention is assessed with a freerecalí test (Marchal & Nicolas, 2000;McDaniel, DeLosh, & Merriít, 2000;Tess, Hutchinson, Treloar, & Jenkins, 1999).…”

Section: Presentation Of Abstract By Means Of Interactive Drawingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presentation of Keywords by Means of Interactive Drawings

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(y of A CoruñaOne of ¡he main oustanding problems En keyword mnemotechnics is whether tus technique is more effective when the suhjects generate ¡heir own keywords, or when (he keywords are supplied by the experimenter. Both methods have advantages ané disadvantages. An alternative method has recently been suggested, in which the keywords are generated by ¡he subjects peers. In ¡he present study we aimed ¡o investigate whether immediate or delayed recail are affected by keywcrd generation method (experimenter or peer generation). Wc also almed ¡o determine whe¡her ¡he method of keyword generation affects imaging capacity as evaluated by questionnaires or spatial tests. A total of 377 secondary-school sn,dents were selected and divided mío loor groups. Ah subjects were presented with 30 Latin words. Additionally, the subjects in Group ¡ were presented with bizarre images, while ¡he subjects of Group 2 were presented with normal images. in bo¡h cases representing the keywords selecíed by peers as interacting with the Latin words. The subjects En Oroups 3 and 4 were likewise presented with normal or bizarre images. respectively, bul representing ¡he keywords selecred by the experimen¡ers. The subjects' imaging capacity was evaluated by means of (he Vividness of Visual lmagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) and the Spatial Test of Primary Mental Abiliries (ST-PMA). The results were analysed by multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with three factors (ST-PMA imaging capacity, 2 levels; VVIQ imaging capacity, 2 levels; and mnemotechnic meihod, 4 levels) aud dependent variables immediate recail and delayed recall. AII three factors influenced recalí. Subsequent univariate analyses of variance indicated that subjects with high ST-PMA seore and subjects with high VVIQ score showed better immediate aud delayed tecalI ¡han subjects with low ST-PMA seore and subjects with low VVIQ score. Mnemotechnic method (le. whether keywords are generated by (he experimenter or by peers) signifícantly affected immediae recalí bur not delayed recalí. ¡<«y words: keyword ,nethocj, maemonir, drawings, bnagery Uno de los problemas sin resolver en la mnemotecnia de la palabra clave es si ésta resulta más eficaz cuando son los sujetos los que generan sus propias palabras clave o cuando son facilitadas por el experimentador. Los dos métodos tienen ventajas e inconvenientes. Recientemente se ha propuesto una alternativa que consiste en que sean compañeros de los sujetos los que elaboren las palabras clave, alternativa que parece eficaz. En esta investigación se deseaba saber si existía diferencia en el recuerdo inmediato y en el demorado cuando la palabra clave, reforzada con dibujos normales y raros, es elaborada por los experimentadores o cuando es elaborada por compañeros de los sujelos que participan en la investigación. También se deseaba saber si afectaba al recuerdo la capacidad de los sujetos de formar imágenes mentales cuando ésta se evalúa a través de cuestionarios y de pruebas espaciales. Se seleccionó una muestra de 377 estudiantes de ES...

show abstract

Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery.

Cited by 45 publications

References 10 publications

Ageing and Secondary-Distinctiveness-Based Effects: The Orthographic Distinctiveness Effect is More Robust than the Bizarreness Effect

Ageing and Secondary-Distinctiveness-Based Effects: The Orthographic Distinctiveness Effect is More Robust than the Bizarreness Effect

Tests of a Cognitive-Resource-Allocation Account of the Bizarreness Effect

Presentation of Keywords by Means of Interactive Drawings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About