Abstract
Two empirical tests of the principle of encoding specificity are reported. In Experiment I, the normative strength of the cues presented on the input and on the recall trial was varied factorially. To lessen the emphasis on strictly associative learning, only half the items were cued in each phase of the study-recall cycle. Recall was higher when the cues remained the same than when they changed. However, regardless of the condition of input cuing, strong output cues were substantially more effective than weak ones. In Experiment II, the to-be-remembered words were shown in the presence of weak cues on the input trial. Recognition in the context of strong extralist cues was compared with recall to the original input cues. On the test of cued recognition, the target words were either generated by the subjects as free associates or presented to them as items on a test constructed by the experimenter. Contrary to previous findings, recall was not found to be superior to recognition. The phenomena of cue-dependent forgetting that have been interpreted as evidence for the principle of encoding specificity appear to have limited generality.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R., &Bower, G. Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall.Psychological Review, 1972,79, 97–123.
Bahrick, H. P. A two-phase model for prompted recall.Psychological Review, 1970,77, 215–22.
Bernbach, H. A. Stimulus learning and recognition in paired-associate learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,75, 513–519.
Kintsch, W. Models for free recall and recognition. In D. A. Norman (Ed.),Models of human memory. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Martin, E. Relation between stimulus recognition and paired-associate learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,74, 500–505.
Murphy, M. D., &Wallace, W. P. Encoding specificity: Semantic change between storage and retrieval cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 768–774.
Nelson, D. L., Wheeler, J. R., Jr.,Borden, R. C., &Brooks, D. H. Levels of processing and cuing: Sensory versus meaning features.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 971–977.
Reder, L. M., Anderson, J. R., &Bjork, R. A. A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 648–656.
Santa, J. L., &Lamwers, L. L. Encoding specificity: Fact or artifact.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974,13, 412–423.
Thomson, D. M., &Tulving, E. Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,86, 255–262.
Tulving, E. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving and W. Donaldson (Eds.),Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Tulving, E. Recall and recognition of semantically encoded words.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 778–787.
Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review, 1973,80, 352–373.
Twedt, H. M., &Underwood, B. J. Mixed vs. unmixed lists in transfer studies.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,48, 110–116.
Underwood, B. J. The role of the association in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 917–939.
Watkins, M. J., &Tulving, E. Episodic memory: When recognition fails.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1975,104, 5–29.
Wotford, G. Function of distinct associations for paired-associate performance.Psychological Review, 1971,78, 303–313.
Woodworth, R. S.Experimental psychology, New York: Holt, 1938.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant MH-12006 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Postman, L. Tests of the generality of the principle of encoding specificity. Memory & Cognition 3, 663–672 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198232
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198232