Abstract
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee Category typicality effects were investigated within the context of three models of distinctiveness: a univariate model, a fixed-multifeature model, and a weighted-multifeature model. High-typical, medium-typical, and atypical targets were embedded in lists containing a background set of mediumto high-typicality items. Atypical items were more poorly recalled than were medium- and high-typical items independently of list structure. In recognition, subjects who studied high-typical items had difficulty discriminating between high-typical items that were and were not presented as part of the list. However, item typicality had little effect on the recognition performance of subjects who did not study high-typical items. These findings were consistent with the weighted-multifeature model of distinctiveness.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bartlett, J. C., Hurry, S., &Thorley, W. (1984). Typicality and familiarity of faces.Memory & Cognition,12, 219–228.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80 (3, Pt. 2).
Bjorklund, D. F., &Bernholtz, J. E. (1986). The role of knowledge base in the memory performance of good and poor readers.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,41, 367–393.
Bjorklund, D. F., &Thompson, B. E. (1983). Category typicality effects in children’s memory performance: Qualitative and quantitative differences in the processing of category information.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,35, 329–344.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., &Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology,11, 177–220.
Cohen, M. E., &Carr, W. J. (1975). Facial recognition and the von Restorff effect.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,6, 383–384.
Davidson, D. (1994). Recognition and recall of irrelevant and interruptive atypical actions in script-based stories.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 757–775.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Depth, elaboration, and distinctiveness. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.)Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 89–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gati, I., &Tversky, A. (1984). Weighting common and distinctive features in perceptual and conceptual judgments.Cognitive Psychology,16, 341–370.
Going, M., &Read, J. D. (1974). Effects of uniqueness, sex of subject, and sex of photograph on facial recognition.Perceptual & Motor Skills,39, 109–110.
Graesser, A. C., Gordon, S. E., &Sawyer, J. D. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities: Tests of a script pointer + tag hypothesis.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 319–332.
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,16, 503–515.
Greenberg, M. S., &Bjorklund, D. F. (1981). Category typicality in free recall: Effects of feature overlap or differential category encod ing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 145–147.
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., &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: Human Learning & Memory,8, 81–87.
Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Kŭcera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., &Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 212–228.
Marschark, M., &Hunt, R. R. (1989). A reexamination of the role of imagery in learning and memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 710–720.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory: The importance of distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 54–65.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., DeLosh, E., May, C., &Brady, P. (1995). The bizarreness effect: It’s not surprising, it’s complex.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 422–435.
McLaughlin, J. P. (1968). Recall and recognition measures of the von Restorff effect in serial learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,78, 99–102.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.
Murdock, B. B. (1960). The distinctiveness of stimuli.Psychological Review,67, 16–31.
Murphy, G. L., &Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence.Psychological Review,92, 289–316.
Neath, I. (1993a). Contextual and distinctive processes and the serial position function.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 820–840.
Neath, I. (1993b). Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition.Memory & Cognition,21, 689–698.
Neath, I., &Knoedler, A. J. (1994). Distinctiveness and serial position effects in recognition and sentence processing.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 776–795.
Riefer, D. M., &Rouder, J. N. (1992). A multinomial modeling analysis of the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery.Memory & Cognition,20, 601–611.
Rosch, E. H. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 192–233.
Rosch, E. H., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
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.
Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.
Smith, D. A., &Graesser, A. C. (1981). Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task.Memory & Cognition,9, 550–559.
Thorndike, E. L., &Lorge, I. (1944).The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Valentine, T., &Bruce, V. (1986). Recognizing familiar faces: The role of distinctiveness and familiarity.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 300–305.
Vokey, J. R., &Read, J. D. (1992). Familiarity, memorability, and the effect of typicality on the recognition of faces.Memory & Cognition,20, 291–302.
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
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schmidt, S.R. Category typicality effects in episodic memory: Testing models of distinctiveness. Mem Cogn 24, 595–607 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201086
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201086