Abstract
Five experiments were conducted in order to examine subjects’ judgments of the memorability of high- (HF) and low-frequency (LF) words in the context of a recognition memory task. In Experiment 1, the subjects were provided study/test experience with a list of HF and LF words prior to making memorability judgments for a new list of HF and LF items. The findings were consistent with previous evidence (Greene & Thapar, 1994; Wixted, 1992) suggesting that subjects are not explicitly aware of the greater recognition memorability of LF words. Experiments 2–5 embedded the memorability judgment task within the recognition test itself. In these experiments, the subjects consistently gave higher memorability ratings to LF items. The contrast between the pattern of results found when the subjects made their judgments at the time of list presentation (Experiment 1) and that when they made their judgments during the recognition test (Experiments 2–5) is consistent with recent evidence that even seemingly highly related metamnemonic judgments (e.g., ease of learning judgments vs. judgments of learning for the same items) may be based on very different factors if they occur at different points in the study/test cycle. The present findings are also consistent with the possibility that very rapid retrieval of memorability information for HF and LF words may affect recognition decisions and may contribute to the recognition memory word frequency effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., &Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 610–632.
Bornstein, B. H., & LeCompte, D. C. (1995, November).Stimulus characteristic effects on source monitoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Brown, J. (1976). An analysis of recognition and recall and of problems in their comparison. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition (pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.
Brown, J., Lewis, V. J., &Monk, A. F. (1977). Memorability, word frequency, and negative recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,29, 461–473.
Brown, J., &Routh, D. A. (1970). Recognition assessed byd′ and by non-parametric alternative (the A-Index) as a function of the number of choices.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,22, 707–719.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., &Richman, B. (1971).The American Heritage word frequency book. New York: American Heritage.
Dunlosky, J., &Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect.Memory & Cognition,20, 374–380.
Gillund, G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.Psychological Review,91, 1–67.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,13, 8–20.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 5–16.
Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., &Iverson, G. (1991). Forgetting and the mirror effect in recognition memory: Concentering of underlying distributions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 846–858.
Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G., &Kim, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory.Psychological Review,100, 546–567.
Greene, R. L., &Thapar, A. (1994). Mirror effect in frequency discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 946–952.
Gregg, V. (1976). Word frequency, recognition, and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition (pp. 183–216). London: Wiley.
Guttentag, R. E., &Carroll, D. (1994). Identifying the basis for the word frequency effect in recognition memory.Memory,2, 255–273.
Hays, W. L. (1963).Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hintzman, D. L. (1994). On explaining the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 201–205.
Hintzman, D. L., Caulton, D. A., &Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval constraints and the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 275–289.
Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1997). Comparing retrieval dynamics in recognition memory and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 228–247.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.
Kim, K., &Glanzer, M. (1994). Attention/likelihood theory: Reply to Hintzman (1994).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 206–208.
Leonesio, R. J., &Nelson, T. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 464–470.
Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.
Nelson, T. O., &Dunlosky, J. (1992). How shall we explain the delayedjudgment-of-learning effect?Psychological Science,3, 317–318.
Wixted, J. T. (1992). Subjective memorability and the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 681–690.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
—Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guttentag, R., Carroll, D. Memorability judgments for high- and low-frequency words. Mem Cogn 26, 951–958 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201175
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201175