The bizarreness effect: Dissociation between item and source memory

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between memory for particular items (nouns embedded in sentences) varying in bizarreness and the spatial location in which they were learned. Consistent with earlier findings, the items embedded in bizarre sentences were better recalled than those embedded in common sentences. This mnemonic advantage for bizarre sentences did not extend to memory for source (spatial location), which did not reliably vary as a function of bizarreness. This pattern is inconsistent with several existing theoretical formulations of the relation between item and source encoding and related findings. We propose a theoretical possibility for integrating these varied findings. Finally, the expectation-violation explanation of the bizarreness effect was not supported by the absence of a relation between recall of the items and memory for context.

Effects of ageing on associative memory for related and unrelated pictures

“…In the present studies, we found no evidence that bizarreness enhanced item memory relative to typical scenes in experiments 1 and 2, or that bizarreness improved binding, as assessed by experiment 3. In addition, previous studies suggested that bizarreness enhances item, but not source, memory (Macklin & McDaniel, 2005), which would preclude an effect on memory for associations.…”

Hedges enhance memory but inhibit retelling

“…Hosman & Siltanen, 2006). Including a hedge in this situation may seem strange, and this strangeness may contribute to the memorability of hedge-marked information, similar to how a bizarre sentence enhances memory for ordinary nouns within the sentence (Macklin & McDaniel, 2005). That is, an unnecessary hedge may lead a listener to pay more attention to information, and if a listener is led to give more consideration as to why a hedge was used, this closer examination may render the information more easily accessible for future recall.…”

Source memory for advertisements: The role of advertising message credibility

“…Item recognition Item recognition was higher for statements with low credibility than for statements with high credibility, ΔG 2 (1) = 47.08, p < .01 (Table 2). Implausible or unbelievable statements may stick in memory because of a bizarreness effect (Macklin & McDaniel, 2005).…”

“…The rectangles on the right represent the participants' answers in the source- statements with high a priori credibility, ΔG 2 (1) = 35.09, p < .01. This may reflect the fact that statements with low a priori credibility made more bizarre claims than statements with high a priori credibility, which may have enhanced memory for these statements (Macklin & McDaniel, 2005).…”