Abstract
The paper reports four experiments concerned with memory for sets of categorically related or unrelated nouns, as a function of the extent to which initial processing focused on categorical or distinctive features of the nouns. The general finding is that distinctive features are valuable for later intracategory discrimination in recall and recognition, but categorical features are not, as judged by cued recall, recognition, measures of association between items, and categorical intrusion errors. A theoretical framework, based on the diagnostic value of features for various classifications, is offered as an account of the results.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asch, S. E. The doctrinal tyranny of associationism: Or what is wrong with rote learning. In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.),Verbal behavior and general behavior theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1968.
Asch, S. E. A reformulation of the problem of associations.American Psychologist, 1969,24, 92–102.
Barrick, H. P. A two-phase model for prompted recall.Psychological Review, 1970,77, 215–222.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,80 (3, Part 2).
Begg, I. Imagery and organization in memory: Instructional effects.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 174–183.
Craik, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 671–684.
Craik, F. I. M., &Tulving, E. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104, 268–294.
Epstein, M. L., Phillips, W. D., &Johnson, S. J. Recall of related and unrelated word pairs as a function of processing level.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975,1, 149–152.
Martin, E. Relation between stimulus recognition and paired-associative learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,74, 500–505.
Martin, E. Generation-recognition theory and the encoding specificity principle.Psychological Review, 1975,82, 150–153.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977,16, 519–534.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968,76(1, Part 2).
Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review, 1973,80, 352–373.
Tversky, A. Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 327–352.
Watkins, M. J., &Tulving, E. Episodic memory: When recognition fails.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104. 5–29.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Helpful comments were offered at every stage of the research by members of the F. T. Bacon Society (Grant Harris, John Mitterer, and Douglas Upfold), and by Larry Jacoby. The research was funded by Grant A8l22 from the National Research Council of Canada. The manuscript was prepared while the author was a Visiting Associate Professor at the University of Toronto.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Begg, I. Similarity and contrast in memory for relations. Memory & Cognition 6, 509–517 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198239
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198239