Abstract
If you are asked to remember an event described by a sentence, how will your memory be affected by the number of related events experienced in the same context? The experiments reported here address this empirical question within the theoretical framework of relational and item-specific information. Assuming that both common and distinctive features of events are important in recall, encoding of both types of information should produce optimal performance. Assuming further that the type of information encoded, either common or distinctive, is influenced by manipulations, such as the number of related sentences and the orienting task, recall should be a product of the interaction between set size and type of orienting task. The results of these experiments were consistent with this prediction. Subsidiary analyses supported the interpretation of this interaction in terms of the differential availability of relational and item-specific information. The results are discussed in the context of the script pointer + tag hypothesis of schema theory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, R C, &Pickert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously un-recallable information following a shift in perspective.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior.17, 1–12.
Begg, I. (1978) Similarity and contrast m memory for relations.Memory & Cognition,6, 509–517
Beelezza, F. S, Cheesman, F. L,, &Reddy, G. (1977). Organizational and semantic elaboration in free recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,1, 539–550
Einstein, G. O., &Hunt, R. R. (1980). Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual-item and relational processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning & Memory,6, 588–598.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A , Bowers, C. A., &Stevens, D. T. (1984). Memory for prose: The influence of relational and propositions-pecific processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 133–143,
Epstein, M L., Phillips, W D., &Johnson, J. J. (1975) Recall of related and nonrelated word pairs as a function of processing level.Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning & Memory,1, 149–152.
Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition.Memory & Cognition,7, 95–112
Glenberg, A. M, &Smith, S. M. (1981) Spacing repetitions and solving problems are not the same.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 110–119
Graesser, A. C, Wool, 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, G, Begg, I. &Upfold, D. (1980) On the role of the speaker’s expectation,, in interpersonal communication.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 597–607
Humphreys, M. S., &Bain, J. D. (1983) Recognition memory. A cue and information analysis.Memory & Cognition,11, 586–600
Hunt, R. R., &Einstein, G. O. (1981) Relational and item-specific information m memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 497–514
Hunt, R. R., &Mitchell, D. B. (1978). Specificity in nonsemantic orienting tasks and distinctive memory traces.Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning & Memory,4, 472–481
Huni, R R, &Mitchell, D. B. (1982) Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinetiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning. Memory & Cognition,8, 81–87
Hunt, R. R., &Sela, C. E. (1984) Category size effects in recall The roles of relational and individual item information.Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory & Cognition,10. 454–464
Lockhari, R. S. Craik, F. I. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall In J Brown (Ed.),Recognition and recall. London Wiley
Mandler, G., Goodman, G. O. &Wilkes-Gibbs, D. L. (1982). The word frequency paradox m recognition.Memory & Cognition,10, 33–42
Nelson, D. L. (1979) Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name In L, S Cermak & F. M. Craik (Eds),Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
Ritchey, G. H. (1980). Picture superiority in free recall. The effects of organization and elaboration.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,29, 460–474
Rumelhart, D. E., &Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge m memory In R. C. Anderson, R. J Spiro, & W. E Montague (Eds),Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. (1977).Scipts, plans, goal and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
Thorndyke, P. W., &Hayes-Rorh,B. (1979). The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge.Cognitive Psychology.11, 82–106
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352
Yekovich, F. R., &Thorndyke, P. W. (1981) An evaluation of alternative functional models of narrative schemata.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 454–469
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Support for this research was provided by the Graduate Research Council of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript were provided by Art Graesser, Cheryl Logan, and Marc Marschark.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hunt, R.R., Ausley, J.A. & Schultz, E.E. Shared and item-specific information in memory for event descriptions. Memory & Cognition 14, 49–54 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209228
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209228