Abstract
In this article, we report on two experiments that aimed to shed light on the memorability effect that derives from varying the uniqueness of contextual cues presented at encoding and retrieval. We sought to understand the locus of the recognition advantage for studying and testing words with nominally irrelevant features that are rarely shared with other words (“low-fan” features) as compared with features that are studied with more words (“high-fan” features). Each word was studied with one high-fan feature and one low-fan feature, but only one of the two features was reinstated at test. Recognition judgments were more accurate when the low-fan feature was reinstated than when the high-fan feature was reinstated. The data suggest that encoding cues that suffer from contextual interference negatively affect retrieval and do so by hindering recollection-based processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arndt, J., &Reder, L. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 1–15.
Cary, M., &Reder, L. M. (2003). A dual-process account of the listlength and strength-based mirror effects in recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 231–248.
Dewhurst, S. A., &Conway, M. A. (1994). Pictures, images, and recollective experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1088–1098.
Diana, R. A., Peterson, M. J., &Reder, L. M. (2004). The role of spurious feature familiarity in recognition memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 150–156.
Diana, R. A., &Reder, L. M. (2005). The list strength effect: A contextual competition account.Memory & Cognition,33, 1289–1302.
Donaldson, W. (1996). The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing.Memory & Cognition,24, 523–533.
Dunlosky, J., Hunt, R. R., &Clark, E. (2000). Is perceptual salience needed in explanations of the isolation effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 649–657.
Dunn, J. C. (2004). Remember-know: A matter of confidence.Psychological Review,111, 524–542.
Fabiani, M., &Donchin, E. (1995). Encoding processes and memory organization: A model of the von Restorff effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 224–240.
Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective experience.Memory & Cognition,16, 309–313.
Geraci, L., &Rajaram, S. (2004). The distinctiveness effect in the absence of conscious recollection: Evidence from conceptual priming.Journal of Memory & Language,51, 217–230.
Graf, P., &Ryan, L. (1990). Transfer-appropriate processing for implicit and explicit memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 978–992.
Green, R. T. (1956). Surprise as a factor in the von Restorff effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,52, 340–344.
Hirshman, E., &Jackson, E. (1997). Distinctive perceptual processing and memory.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 2–12.
Hirshman, E., &Master, S. (1997). Modeling the conscious correlates of recognition memory: Reflections on the remember—know paradigm.Memory & Cognition,25, 345–351.
Hunt, R. R. (2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate memory.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 811–825.
Hunt, R. R., &Elliott, J. M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 49–74.
Hunt, R. R., &Lamb, C. A. (2001). What causes the isolation effect?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1359–1366.
Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.
Hunt, R. R., &Mitchell, D. B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 81–87.
Hunt, R. R., &Smith, R. E. (1996). Accessing the particular from the general: The power of distinctiveness in the context of organization.Memory & Cognition,24, 217–225.
Jenkins, W. O., &Postman, L. (1948). Isolation and “spread of effect” in serial learning.American Journal of Psychology,61, 214–221.
Kinoshita, S. (1997). Masked target priming effects on feeling-ofknowing and feeling-of-familiarity judgments.Acta Psychologica,97, 183–199.
Kishiyama, M. M., &Yonelinas, A. P. (2003). Novelty effects on recollection and familiarity in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,31, 1045–1051.
Rajaram, S. (1996). Perceptual effects on remembering: Recollective processes in picture recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 365–377.
Rajaram, S. (1998). The effects of conceptual salience and perceptual distinctiveness on conscious recollection.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 71–78.
Reder, L. M., Arndt, J., & Park, H. (2005). Support for an operational definition of distinctiveness. Unpublished manuscript (www.andrew .cmu.edu/user/reder/unpublished/unpublished.html).
Reder, L. M., Donavos, D. K., &Erickson, M. A. (2002). Perceptual match effects in direct tests of memory: The role of contextual fan.Memory & Cognition,30, 312–323.
Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., &Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember-know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 294–320.
Schmidt, S. R. (1985). Encoding and retrieval processes in the memory for conceptually distinctive events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 565–578.
Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?Memory & Cognition,19, 523–542.
Smith, R. E., &Hunt, R. R. (2000). The effects of distinctiveness require reinstatement of organization: The importance of intentional memory instructions.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 431–446.
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness.Canadian Psychology,26, 1–12.
von Restorff, H. (1933). Analyse von Vorgängen im Spurenfeld: 1. Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld [Analysis of processes in the trace field: 1. On the effect of field formations in trace field].Psychologische Forschung,18, 299–342.
Wixted, J. T., &Stretch, V. (2004). In defense of the signal detection interpretation of remember/know judgments.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 616–641.
Yonelinas, A. P. (2001). Consciousness, control, and confidence: The 3 Cs of recognition memoryJournal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 361–379.
Yonelinas, A. P., &Jacoby, L. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 622–643.
Zechmeister, E. B. (1972). Orthographic distinctiveness as a variable in word recognition.American Journal of Psychology,85, 425–430.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by Grant 2-R01-MH52808 from the National Institute of Mental Health to L.M.R.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, H., Arndt, J. & Reder, L.M. A contextual interference account of distinctiveness effects in recognition. Memory & Cognition 34, 743–751 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193422
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193422