Abstract
Recognition of script actions that varied in specificity and expectancy of details was investigated. In Experiment 1, subjects indicated whether each action was the same or changed on an immediate or delayed yes/no recognition test. Changes that involved added details were recognized better than changes that involved deleted details. Unexpected added details were detected better than expected ones, but expectancy had no effect on deleted details. Experiment 2 tested whether the poor recognition of changes in actions with deleted details was due to a failure to retrieve those details. The recognition test was a forced-choice test with details present in the correct alternative, so their retrieval was not necessary for correct choices. Still, recognition of originally generic actions was better than recognition of originally detailed actions. Thus, a failure to retrieve details could not completely explain the results of Experiment 1. The subjects probably recognized originally generic actions better because they processed the material schematically so that the detailed actions subsumed the generic idea. Recognition decisions may then have been based either on the plausibility of the alternatives or on their familiarity within the experimental context.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Agostinelli, G., Sherman, S. J., Fazio, R. H., &Hearst, E. S. (1986). Detecting and identifying change: Additions versus deletions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 445–454.
Bharucha, J. J., Olney, K. L., &Schnurr, P. P. (1985). Detection of coherence-disrupting and coherence-conferring alterations in text.Memory & Cognition,13, 573–578.
Bransford, J. D., &Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 717–726.
Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 316–355.
Goodman, G. S. (1980). Picture memory: How the action schema affects retention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 472–495.
Graesser, A. C., Gordon, S. E., &Sawyer, J. D. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and atypical actions m scripted activities: Tests of a script pointer + tag hypothesis.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 319–332.
Graesser, A. C., &Nakamura, G. V. (1982). The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 60–109). New York: Academic Press.
Graesser, A. c., Woll, S. B., Kowalski, D. J., &Smith, D. A. (1980). Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 503–515.
Harris, R. J., &Monaco, G. E. (1978). Psychology of pragmatic implication: Information processing between the lines.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,107, 1–22.
Pezdek, K. (1987). Memory for pictures: A life-span study of the role of visual detail.Child Development,58, 807–815.
Pezdek, K., &Chen, H.-C. (1982). Developmental differences in the role of detail in picture recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,33, 207–215.
Pezdek, K., Maki, R. H., Valencia-Laver, D., Whetstone, T., Stoeckert, J., &Dougherty, T. (1988). Picture memory: Recognizing added and deleted details.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 468–476.
Schank, R., &Abelson, R. P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding, Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Underwood, B. J. (1983)Attributes of memory Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maki, R.H. Recognition of added and deleted details in scripts. Memory & Cognition 17, 274–282 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198465
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198465