The bizarreness effect in a multitrial intentional learning task

Wollen, Keith A.; Cox, Steven D.

doi:10.3758/bf03333632

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of a bizarreness effect with intentional learning instructions is not consistent with the results of Wollen and Cox (1981) or Hirshman et al (1989), who found significant bizarreness effects with intentional learning instructions. This discrepancy might be due to one of the several procedural differences between the experiments.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

Burns

1996

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bizarre imagery effect, better memory for bizarre stimuli than for common stimuli, is now an established finding. However, the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery are subject to several constraints (e.g., the use of mixed lists and free-recall tests). A further constraint on the bizarreness effect is demonstrated here. In each of two experiments, subjects were given either incidental or intentional study instructions and were asked to rate the vividness ofthe images they formed from the bizarre and common sentences. Contrary to conclusions based on available evidence, the bizarreness effect in free recall was manifested only with the incidental learning instructions. This additional constraint on the effect is consistent with the item-order account of bizarreness.A generally accepted view of imagery is that bizarre images lead to better retention performance than common images. Until fairly recently, however, there was little empirical support for this belief. This lack of empirical support for the mnemonic benefits ofbizarre imagery led Postman (1975) to conclude that" despite popular misconceptions, bizarre images are no better as memory aids than common ones" (p. 322). More recently, however, Einstein and McDaniel (1987) reviewed the bizarre imagery literature and demonstrated that the effect does manifest itself under certain experimental conditions: namely, when mixed lists are used and retention is assessed with a free-recall test (see also McDaniel & Einstein, 1986).McDaniel and his colleagues have drawn from research on the generation effect-better memory for self-generated items than for items that are simply read-to explain the effects oflist type (mixed or unmixed) on the bizarreness effect (McDaniel, Einstein, DeLosh, May, & Brady, 1995). Similar to the bizarreness effect, the generation effect generally does not occur with unmixed list designs (see, e.g., Siamecka & Katsaiti, 1987). One explanation for the absence of generation effects with unmixed lists is based on the item-order distinction. Presumably, generation enhances the encoding of item-specific information but at the expense of processing serial order information (Burns, Curti, & Lavin, 1993; Nairne, Riegler, & Serra, 1991;Serra & Nairne, 1993). The additional item information given to the generated items tends to improve recall by about the same amount as the additional order information improves recall for the simply read items, thus resulting in a null effect. When mixed lists are used, however, the simply read items either do not receive the additional order processing or the order processing spreads to nearby generated items. This results in better recall for the generated items because all the items receive roughly equivalent amounts oforder processing, but the generated items receive more item processing. McDaniel et al. (1995) have argued that in betweenlists designs, bizarre sentences enhance the processing of item information, and hinder the processing of order information, much like self-generated items. This processing tr...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 45%

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

Burns

1996

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most experiments on the bizarreness effect (e.g., Lang, 1995;Robinson-Riegler & McDaniel, 1994;Worthen & Marshall, 1996) have used an incidental learning task, in which subjects rate stimuli on some dimension (such as vividness) but are not informed of the final memory test. However, a few studies have obtained the bizarreness effect under conditions where subjects are given explicit instructions to memorize (e.g., Nicolas & Marchal, 1996;Wollen & Cox, 1981). This variable has not been systematically explored in many studies on bizarre imagery, but it is reasonable to speculate that it may have its main effect on the storage of information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory for common and bizarre stimuli: A storage-retrieval analysis

Riefer

LaMay

1998

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the hypothesis that common stimuli are stored in memory better than bizarre stimuli are. Subjects memorized a series of noun pairs embedded within 20 common or bizarre sentences. By using a between-list design, free and cued recall, and intentional-learning instructions, we were able to obtain a commonness effect (Le., a recall advantage for the common sentences). Riefer and Rouder's (1992) multinomial processing-tree model for measuring storage and retrieval was applied to the data, which revealed that the recall advantage for common sentences was due to storage and not retrieval processes. We propose a two-factor theory: that common items are stored better in memory, but that bizarre items are retrieved better from memory. This storage-retrieval explanation does a good job of accounting for a number of fmdings associated with the bizarreness effect.The bizarreness effect is the observation that bizarre or unusual stimuli are remembered better than common or ordinary stimuli (Lang, 1995;Weir & Richman, 1996;Worthen & Marshall, 1996). Memory researchers have been investigating this phenomenon for over 25 years; yet experimental support for the bizarreness effect over this time span has been somewhat mixed. Early experiments (e.g., Andreoff& Yarmey, 1976;Senter & Hoffman, 1976) failed to show any recall advantage ofbizarre stimuli, and some studies actually showed a recall advantage for common stimuli, a phenomenon referred to as the commonness effect (e.g., Collyer, Jonides, & Bevan, 1972;Wollen, Weber, & Lowry, 1972). More recent studies have shown that, under the right circumstances, a reliable bizarreness effect can be obtained experimentally. Specifically, the effect is best achieved using free recall, mixedlist designs, incidental-learning instructions, and delayed recall (see McDaniel, 1987, andMcDaniel, Einstein, DeLosh, May, & Brady, 1995, for reviews).However, this recent work also reveals that the bizarreness effect is a fragile and complex one, requiring a very specific set ofexperimental conditions. For example, McDaniel and Einstein (1986) showed that the effect is obtained when subjects evaluate the vividness of stimuli, but it will not occur when subjects rate the bizarreness or interactiveness of stimuli. In addition, Kroll and his associates (Kroll, Jaeger, & Dornfest, 1992;Kroll, Schepeler, & Angin, 1986;Kroll & Tu, 1988) have documented a number of studies failing to achieve the bizarreness effect, and Riefer and Rouder (1992) achieved the effect in only two of three replications of the same experiment.This research was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9309667. The authors would like to thank Gil Einstein, Neal Kroll, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to D. M. Riefer, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino, CA 92407 (e-mail: driefer@wiley.csusb.edu).Thus, the bizarreness effect continues to be a somewhat elusive phenomenon.In this article, we present a two-factor hypothesis...

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

The bizarreness effect in a multitrial intentional learning task

Cited by 28 publications

References 6 publications

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn

Memory for common and bizarre stimuli: A storage-retrieval analysis

Presentation of Keywords by Means of Interactive Drawings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About