Cognitive Processing

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 73–79 | Cite as

Does category labeling lead to forgetting?

  • Nathaniel BlancoEmail author
  • Todd Gureckis
Short Report


What effect does labeling an object as a member of a familiar category have on memory for that object? Recent studies suggest that recognition memory can be negatively impacted by categorizing objects during encoding. This paper examines the “representational shift hypothesis” which argues that categorizing an object impairs recognition memory by altering the trace of the encoded memory to be more similar to the category prototype. Previous evidence for this idea comes from experiments in which a basic-level category labeling task was compared to a non-category labeling incidental encoding task, usually a preference judgment (e.g., “Do you like this item?”). In two experiments, we examine alternative tasks that attempt to control for processing demands and the degree to which category information is explicitly recruited at the time of study. Contrary to the predictions of the representational shift hypothesis, we find no evidence that memory is selectively impaired by category labeling. Overall, the pattern of results across both studies appears consistent with well-established variables known to influence memory such as encoding specificity and distinctiveness effects.


Categorization Labeling Memory Schema encoding 



The preliminary results for this study were presented as part of a final class project in an undergraduate Lab in Human Cognition course at NYU. We especially thank Kate Ray and Frank Lei. We also thank Eric Dewitt, members of the Davachi lab, members of the Daw lab, and the Concepts and Categories (ConCats) group at NYU for helpful discussions in the development of this project.


  1. Bartlett F (1932) Remembering: an experimental and social study. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Kensinger E, Corkin S (2003) Memory enhancement for emotional words: are emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words? Mem Cogn 31(8):1169–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lupyan G (2008) From chair to “chair:” a representational shift account of object labeling effects on memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 137(2):348–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Nairne J (2002) The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory 10:389–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Richler J, Gauthier I, Palmeri T (2011) Automaticity of basic-level categorization accounts for labeling effects in visual recognition memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 37(6):1579–1587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sakamoto Y, Love B (2006) Enhanced oddball memory through differentiation, not isolation. Psychonomic Bull Rev 13:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schooler J, Engstler-Schooler T (1990) Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: some things are better left unsaid. Cogn Psychol 22:36–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sloutsky V, Fisher A (2004) When development and learning decrease memory. Psychol Sci 15(8):553–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Symons C, Johnson B (1997) The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 121:371–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tulving E, Thomson D (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80(5):352–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. von Restorff H (1933) Analyse von vorgangen in spurenfeld. i. uber die wirkung von bereichs- bildungen im spurenfeld [analysis of processes in the memory trace on the effect of group formations on the memory trace]. Psychologische Forschung 18:299–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations