Abstract
Twenty-nine reflective and 29 impulsive fifth-grade boys were tested in a forced-choice visual recognition memory task. In three of the experimental conditions (1FD, 2FD, 4FD) the number of visual feature differences between the correct and incorrect test stimuli was 1, 2, or 4, and correct response could not be based on the name of the stimulus; in the fourth condition (DO) the correct and incorrect test stimuli had different names. As predicted, performance on DO and 4FD was equivalent and was superior to that on 1FD and 2FD. Although reflective Ss made more correct responses than impulsive Ss in all four conditions, only the performance difference in Condition 1FD was significant. Mean correct response latencies mirrored the correct response data. These results were consistent with the Selfridge-Neisser feature-testing model of recognition memory, and it was argued that the primary underlying basis for the dimension of reflection-impulsivity was that reflective Ss tend to engage in a more detailed visual feature analysis of stimulus arrays. Strong inferential evidence was provided that visual feature analysis independent of verbal labeling was responsible for successful recognition performance in these Ss.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Drake, D. M. Perceptual correlates of impulsive and reflective behavior. Developrrtental Psychology, 1970, 2, 202–214.
Kagan, J. Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 609–628.
Kagan, J. Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71, 17–24.
Kagan, J., & Kogan, N. Individual variation in cognitive processes. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),Carmichael’s manual of child psychology. Vol. 1 New York: Wiley, 1970. Pp. 1366–1378.
Kagan, J., Pearson, L., & Welch, L. Conceptual impulsivity and inductive reasoning. Child Development, 1966, 37, 583–594.
Kagan, J., fnRosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 1964, 78(1, Whole No. 578).
Kilburg, R. R., & Siegel, A. W. Differential feature analysis in the recognition memory of reflective and impulsive children. Memory & Cognition, 1973, 1, 413–419.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Nuessle, W. Reflectivigy as an influence on focussing behavior of children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1972, 14, 265–276.
Odom, R. D., Mclntyce, C. W., & Neale, G. S. The influence of cognitive style on perceptual learning. Child Development, 1971, 42, 883–892,
Selfridge, O. G. Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. InMechanization of thought processes. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1959. Pp. 512–526.
Selfridge, O. G., & Neisser, U, Pattern recognition by machine. Scientific American, 1960, 203, 60–68.
Smith, E. E. Choice reaction time: An analysis of the major theoretical positions. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 77–110.
Zelniker, T., Jeffrey, W. E., Ault, R., & Parsons, J. Analysis and modification of search strategies of hnpulsive and reflective children on the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Child Development, 1972, 43, 321–335.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research was supported by the Learning Research and Development Center, and in part by the National Institute of Education (NIE), United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of NIE, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siegel, A.W., Babich, J.M. & Kirasic, K.C. Visual recognition memory in reflective and impulsive children. Memory & Cognition 2, 379–384 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209013
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209013