Abstract
Performance on tests in which there is control over reporting (e.g., cued recall with the option to withhold responses) can be characterized by four parameters: free- and forced-report retrieval (correct responses retrieved from memory when the option to withhold responses is exercised and when it is not, respectively), monitoring (discrimination between correct and incorrect potential responses), and report bias (willingness to report responses). Typically, researchers do not examine all these components in cued-test performance; blanks are sometimes counted the same as errors, meaning that the (free-report) performance index is contaminated with report bias and monitoring ability. In this research, a two-stage testing procedure is described that allows measures of free- and forced-report retrieval, monitoring, and bias to be derived from the original encoding specificity experiments (Thomson & Tulving, 1970). The results show that their cue-reinstatement manipulation affected free-report retrieval, but once report bias and monitoring effects were removed by forcing output, retrieval was unaffected.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bahrick, H. P. (1969). Measurement of memory by prompted recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology,79, 213–219.
Bahrick, H. P. (1970). Two-phase model for prompted recall.Psychological Review,77, 215–222.
Banks, W. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human memory.Psychological Bulletin,74, 81–99.
Clarke, F. R., Birdsall, T. G., &Tanner, W. P. (1959). Two types of ROC curves and definitions of parameters.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,31, 629–630.
Donaldson, W. (1992). Measuring recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 275–277.
Dywan, J., &Bowers, K. (1983). The use of hypnosis to enhance recall.Science,222, 184–185.
Fisher, R. P. (1996). Misconceptions in design and analysis of research with the cognitive interview.Psycoloquy,7(35), witness-memory.12.fisher.
Fisher, R. P., &Geiselman, R. E. (1992).Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Grier, J. B. (1971). Nonparametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas.Psychological Bulletin,75, 424–429.
Healy, A. F., &Jones, C. (1973). Criterion shifts in recall.Psychological Bulletin,79, 335–340.
Higham, P. A. (1998). Believing details known to have been suggested.British Journal of Psychology,89, 265–283.
Higham, P. A., & Roberts, W. T. (1996). Measuring recall performance.Psycoloquy,7 (38), witness-memory.13.higham.
Higham, P. A., & Vokey, J. R. (2002).Illusory recollection. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Higham, P. A., Vokey, J. R., &Pritchard, J. L. (2000). Beyond task dissociations: Evidence for controlled and automatic influences in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 457–470.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.
Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., &Kelley, C. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 115–125.
Klatzky, R. L., &Erdelyi, M. H. (1985). The response criterion problem in tests of hypnosis and memory.The International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis,33, 246–257.
Koriat, A., &Goldsmith, M. (1994). Memory in naturalistic and laboratory contexts: Distinguishing the accuracy-oriented and quantityoriented approaches to memory assessment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 297–315.
Koriat, A., &Goldsmith, M. (1996a). Memory as something that can be counted versus memory as something that can be counted on. In D. Hermann, C. McEvoy, C. Hertzog, P. Hertel, & M. Johnson (Eds.),Basic and applied memory research: Practical applications (Vol. 2, pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Koriat, A., &Goldsmith, M. (1996b). Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy: Correspondence versus storehouse conceptions of memory.Behavioural & Brain Sciences,19, 167–228.
Koriat, A., &Goldsmith, M. (1996c). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy.Psychological Review,103, 490–517.
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., &Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy.Annual Review of Psychology,51, 481–537.
Lockhart, R. S., &Murdock, B. B. (1970). Memory and the theory of signal detection.Psychological Bulletin,74, 100–109.
Memon, A., &Higham, P. A. (1999). A review of the cognitive interview.Psychology, Crime & Law,5, 177–196.
Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. V. (1996). Interviewing witnesses: What works and what doesn’t?Psycoloquy,7 (6), witness memory.1.memon.
Murdock, B. B. (1966). The criterion problem in short term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,72, 317–324.
Murdock, B. B. (1974).Human memory: Theory and data. New York: Wiley.
Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions.Psychological Bulletin,95, 109–133.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Gamma is a measure of the accuracy of predicting performance on one item relative to another item, not of the absolute performance on an individual item: Comments on Schraw (1995).Applied Cognitive Psychology,10, 257–260.
Roberts, W. T., & Higham, P. A. (in press). Selecting accurate statements from the cognitive interview using confidence ratings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
Roediger, H. L., III, &Payne, D. G. (1985). Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: A puzzle for generate/recognize theories.Memory & Cognition,13, 1–7.
Santa, J. L., &Lamwers, L. L. (1974). Encoding specificity: Fact or artifact?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 412–423.
Schraw, G. (1995). Measures of feeling-of-knowing accuracy: A new look at an old problem.Applied Cognitive Psychology,9, 321–332.
Snodgrass, J. C., &Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 34–50.
Thomson, D. M., &Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,86, 255–262.
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness.Canadian Psychology,26, 1–12.
Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.
Wright, D. B. (1996). Measuring feeling of knowing: Comment on Schraw (1995).Applied Cognitive Psychology,10, 261–268.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this article was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) research grant to the author. Portions of this research were presented at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Brain, Behaviour and Cognitive Science, June 1999, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November, 1999, in Los Angeles.
—Accepted by previous editorial team
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Higham, P.A. Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited. Mem Cogn 30, 67–80 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195266
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195266