Abstract
Recall effects attributed to distinctiveness have been explained by both encoding and retrieval accounts. Resolution of this theoretical controversy has been clouded because the typical methodology confounds the encoding and retrieval contexts. Using bizarre and common sentences as materials, we introduce a paradigm that decouples the nature of the encoding context (mixed vs. unmixed lists of items) from the retrieval set (mixed vs. unmixed retrieval sets). Experiment 1 presented unmixed lists for study, and Experiment 2 presented mixed lists for study. In both experiments, significant bizarreness effects were obtained in free recall when the retrieval set intermixed items but not when the retrieval set consisted of only one item type. Also, Experiment 1, using a repeated testing procedure, did not reveal evidence for more extensive encoding of bizarre sentences than of common sentences. The results support the idea that retrieval dynamics primarily mediate the bizarreness effect, and perhaps more generally, distinctiveness effects.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Asch, S. E., &Ebenholtz, S. M. (1962). The process of free recall: Evidence for non-associative factors in acquisition and retention.Journal of Psychology,54, 3–31.
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2002).A ratio model of scale-invariant memory and identification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Burns, D. J. (1993). Item gains and losses during hypermnesic recall: Implications for the item-specific—Relational information distinction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 163–173.
Burns, D. J., &Gold, D. E. (1999). An analysis of item gains and losses in retroactive interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 978–985.
Cohen, J. (1977).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cox, S. D., &Wollen, K. A. (1981). Bizarreness and recall.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 244–245.
DeLosh, E. L., &McDaniel, M. A. (1996). The role of order information in free recall: Application to the word-frequency effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1136–1146.
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.
Einstein, G. O., &McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Distinctiveness and mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 78–102). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., &Lackey, S. (1989). Bizarre imagery, interference, and distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 137–146.
Emmerich, H. J., &Ackerman, B. P. (1979). A test of bizarre interaction as a factor in children’s memory.Journal of Genetic Psychology,134, 225–232.
Hauck, P. D., Walsh, C. C., &Kroll, N. E. A. (1976). Visual imagery mnemonics: Common vs. bizarre mental images.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,7, 160–162.
Hirshman, E. L., &Bjork, R. A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 484–494.
Hirshman, E. L., Whelley, M. M., &Palij, M. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 594–609.
Hogan, R. M., &Kintsch, W. (1971). Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 562–567.
Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did.Psychological Bulletin & Review,2, 105–112.
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.
Jenkins, W. O., &Postman, L. (1948). Isolation and the spread of effect in serial learning.American Journal of Psychology,61, 214–221.
Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., Kihlstrom, J. F., &Aseron, R. (1989). Effects of item-specific and relational information on hypermnesic recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1192–1197.
Knoedler, A. J., Hellwig, K. A., &Neath, I. (1999). The shift from recency to primacy with increasing delay.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,25, 474–487.
Kroll, N. E. A., Schepeler, E. M., &Angin, K. T. (1986). Bizarre imagery: The misremembered mnemonic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 42–54.
McDaniel, M. A., DeLosh, E. L., &Merritt, P. S. (2000). Order information and retrieval distinctiveness: Recall of common versus bizarre material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1045–1056.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 54–65.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., DeLosh, E. L., May, C. P., &Brady, P. (1995). The bizarreness effect: It’s not surprising, it’s complex.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 422–435.
McDaniel, M. A., & Geraci, L. (in press). Encoding and retrieval processes in distinctiveness effects: Toward an integrative framework. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.),Distinctiveness and memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
McDaniel, M. A., Moore, B., &Whitman, H. (1998). Dynamic changes in hypermnesia across early and late tests: A relational/item-specific account.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 173–185.
Merry, R. (1980). Image bizarreness in incidental learning.Psychological Reports,46, 427–430.
Mulligan, N. W. (2000). Perceptual interference at encoding enhances item-specific encoding and disrupts relational encoding: Evidence from multiple recall tests.Memory & Cognition,28, 539–546.
Mulligan, N. W. (2001). Generation and hypermnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 436–450.
Nairne, J. S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory.Memory & Cognition,18, 251–269.
Neath, I. (2000). Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 403–423.
Riefer, D. M., &Rouder, J. N. (1992). A multinomial modeling analysis of the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery.Memory & Cognition,20, 601–611.
Roediger, H. L., III, &Schmidt, S. R. (1980). Output interference in the recall of categorized and paired associate lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 91–105.
Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?Memory & Cognition,19, 523–542.
Schmidt, S. R. (1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 953–967.
Senter, R. J., &Hoffman, R. R. (1976). Bizarreness as a nonessential variable in mnemonic imagery: A confirmation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,7, 163–164.
Slamecka, N. J., &Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 589–607.
Waddill, P. J., &McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Distinctiveness effects in recall: Differential processing or privileged retrieval?Memory & Cognition,26, 108–120.
Watkins, M. J., LeCompte, D. C., &Kim, K. (2000). Role of study strategy in recall of mixed lists of common and rare words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 239–245.
Wollen, K. A., &Cox, S. D. (1981). Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 386–392.
Wollen, K. A., &Margres, M. G. (1987). Bizarreness and the imagery multiprocess model. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 103–127). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wollen, K. A., Weber, A., &Lowry, D. H. (1972). Bizarreness versus interaction of mental images as determinants of learning.Cognitive Psychology,3, 518–523.
Worthen, J. B. (in press). Resolution of discrepant memory strengths: An explanation of the effects of bizarreness on memory. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.),Distinctiveness and memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Worthen, J. B., Marshall, P. H., &Cox, K. B. (1998). List length and the bizarreness effect: Support for a hybrid explanation.Psychological Research,61, 147–156.
Worthen, J. B., Starns, J. J., & Loveland, J. M. (in press). Influence of orienting task on memory for bizarre and common stimuli: Evidence against a surprise-based explanation. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.),Leading edge research in cognitive psychology. Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MCDaniel, M.A., Dornburg, C.C. & Guynn, M.J. Disentangling encoding versus retrieval explanations of the bizarreness effect: Implications for distinctiveness. Mem Cogn 33, 270–279 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195316
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195316