Abstract
A series of experiments was conducted to explore the cognitive processes that mediate the bizarreness effect, that is, the finding that bizarre or unusual imagery is recalled better than common imagery. In all experiments, subjects were presented with noun pairs that were embedded within bizarre or common sentences ina mixed-list design. None of the experiments produced a bizarrenesB effect for cued recall; however, for two of the experiments, the bizarre noun pairs were remembered significantly better than the common pairs for free recall. To determine if these differences were due to the storage or retrieval of the items, a multinomial model for the analyis of imagery mediation in paired-associate learning was developed and applied to the data from the experiments. The model revealed that bizarre sentences benefited the retrieval of the noun pairs but not their storage within memory. The empirical and modeling results are discussed relative to previous findings and theories on thebizarreness effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Andreoff, G. R., &Yarmey, A. D. (1976). Bizarre imagery and associative learning: Aconfirmation.Perceptual & Motor Skills,43, 143–148.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1980). Separation of storage and retrieval factors in free recall of clusterable pairs.Psychological Review,87, 375–397.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefeh, D. M. (1986). The statistical analysis of a model for storageand retrieval processes in human memory.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,39, 129–149.
Bergfeld, V. A., Chqate, L. S., &Kroll, N. E. A. (1982). The effect of bizarre imagery on memory as a function of delay: Reconfirmation of interaction effect.Journal of Mental Imagery,6, 141–158.
Chechile, R. A. (1987). Trace susceptibility theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 203–222.
Cornoldi, C., Cavedon, A., De Beni, R., &Pra Baldi, A. (1988). The influence ofthe nature of material and of mentaloperations on the occurrence of the bizarreness effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology,40, 73–85.
Cox, S.D., &Wollen, K. A. (1981). Bizarreness and recall.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 244–245.
Craik, F. I. M., &Mcdowd, J. M. (1987). Age differences in recall and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: teaming. Memory, & Cognition,13, 474–479.
Desrochers, A., &Begg, I. (1987). A theoretical account of encod-ing and retrieval processes in the use of imagery-based mnemonic techniques: The special case of the keyword method. In M. A. McDaniei & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 56–77). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Einstein, G. O., &Mcdaniel, M. A. (1987). Distinctiveness and the mnemonic benefits ofbizarre 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., &Ackerman, B. (1979). A test of bizarre interaction as a factor in children's memory.Journal of Genetic Psychology,134, 225–232.
Hanlev, J., &Morris, P. (1987). The effects of amount of processing on recall and recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology,39, 431–449.
Hirshman, E. (1988). The expectation-violation effect: Paradoxical effects of semantic relatedness.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 40–58.
Hirshman, E., Wkelley, 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 onlong-term recognition and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,10, 562–567.
Hogg, R. V., &Craig, A. T. (1978).Introduction to mathematical statistics. (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Iaccino, J. F., Dvorak, E., &Coler, M. (1989). Effects of bizarre imagery on the long-term retention of paired associates embedded within variable contexts.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 114–116.
Iaccino, J. F., &Sowa, S. J. (1989). Bizarre imagery in paired-associate learning: An effective mnemonic aid with mixed context, delayed testing, and self-paced conditions.Perceptual & Motor Skills,68, 307–316.
Kail, R., Hale, C. A., Leonard, L. B., &Nippold, M. A. (1984). Lexical storage and retrieval in language-impaired children.Applied Psycholinguistics,5, 37–49.
Kline, S., &Groninger, L. D. (1991). The imagery bizarreness effect as a functionof sentence complexity and presentation time.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 25–27.
Kroll, N. E. A., Schepler, E. M., &Angin, K. T. (1986). Bizarre imagery: The misremembered mnemonic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 42–53.
Kroll, N. E. A., &Tu, S.-F. (1988) The bizarre mnemonic.Psychological Research,50, 28–37.
Lorayne, H., &Lucas, J. (1974).The memory book. New York: Stein & Day.
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. (1991). Bizarre imagery: Mnemonic benefits and theoretical implications. In R. H. Logie & M. Denis (Eds.),Mental images in human cognition (pp. 183–192). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
McNulty, J. A., &Cairo, W. (1966). Memory loss with age: Retrieval or storage?Psychological Reports,19, 229–230.
Merry, R. (1980). Image bizarreness in incidental learning.Psychological Reports,46, 427–430.
O'brien, E. J., &Wolford, C. R. (1982). Effect of delay in testing on retention of plausible versus bizarre mental images.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory. & Cognition,8, 148–152.
Pra Baldi, A., De Beni, R., Cornoldi, C., &Cavedon, A. (1985). Some conditions of the occurrence of the bizarreness effect in free recall.British Journalof Psychology,76, 427–436.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes.Psychological Review,95, 318–339.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1991a). Age differences in storage and retrieval: A multinomial modeling analysis.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 415–418.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1991b). Statistical inference for multinomial tree models. In J.-C. Falmagne & J.-P. Doignon (Eds.),Mathematical psychology: Current developments (pp. 313–336). Berlin: Springer-Vertag.
Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?Memory & Cognition,19, 523–542.
Schonfield, D., &Robertson, B. A. (1966). Memory storage and aging.Canadian Journal of Psychology,20, 228–236.
Smith, A. D. (1980). Age differences in encoding, storage, and retrieval. In L. Poon, J. Fozard, L. Cermak, D. Arenberg, & L. Thompson (Eds.),New directions in memory and aging (pp. 23–46), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomson, D. M., &Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weakand strong cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,86, 255–262.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant BNS-8910552 to William Batchelder and D.M.R.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riefer, D.M., Rouder, J.N. A multinomial modeling analysis of the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery. Mem Cogn 20, 601–611 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202710
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202710