Abstract
Unusual information is generally recalled better than common information (the distinctiveness effect). Differential processing accounts propose that the effect occurs because unusual material elicits encoding processes that are different from those elicited by common material, and strong versions of these accounts predict distinctiveness effects in between-list as well as within-list designs. Experiment 1 employed a between-list design and manipulated presentation rate. Contrary to differential processing predictions, no distinctiveness effect emerged, nor did recall patterns for atypical versus common sentences differ as a function of presentation rate. Experiment 2 further tested differential processing accounts as well as representation accounts via a within-list manipulation and conditions that included experimenter-provided elaborations. Distinctiveness effects emerged in all conditions and, contrary to differential processing predictions, the pattern of recall in the elaborated conditions did not differ from that in the unelaborated conditions. Taken together, the results of this study lend more support to a representation view that suggests mechanisms related to the representation and subsequent retrievability of elements in the memory record play a major role in the distinctiveness effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R., &Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–404). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradshaw, G. L., &Anderson, J. R. (1982). Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 165–174.
Bruce, D., &Gaines, M. T. (1976). Tests of an organizational hypothesis of isolation effects in free recall.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 59–72.
Desrochers, A., &Begg, I. (1987). A theoretical account of encoding and retrieval processes in the use of imagery-based mnemonic techniques: The special case of the keyword method. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes (pp. 56–77). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Einstein, G. O., &McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Distinctiveness and the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes (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.
Fabiani, M., &Donchin, E. (1995). Encoding processes and memory organization: A model of the von Restorff effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 224–240.
Franks, J. J., Vye, J. J., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., Perfetto, G. A., Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., &Littlefield, J. (1982). Learning from explicit versus implicit texts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 414–422.
Hirshman, E. (1988). The expectation-violation effect: Paradoxical effects of semantic relatedness.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 40–58.
Hirshman, E., Whelley, M. M., &Palij, M. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 594–609.
Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 105–112.
Hunt, R. R., &Elliot, 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., &Marschark, M. (1987). Yet another picture of imagery: The roles of shared and distinctive information in memory. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes (pp. 129–150). New York: Springer-Verlag.
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.
Hunt, R. R., &Smith, R. E. (1996). Accessing the particular from the general: The power of distinctiveness in the context of organization.Memory & Cognition,24, 217–225.
Jacoby, L. L., &Craik, F. I. M. (1979). Effects of elaboration of processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of initial context. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1974).The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
McDaniel, M. A., Dunay, P. K., Lyman, B. J., &Kerwin, M. E. (1988). Effects of elaboration and relational distinctiveness on sentence memory.American Journal of Psychology,101, 357–369.
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., DeLosh, E., May, C. P., &Brady, P. (1995). The bizarreness effect: It’s not surprising, it’s complex.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 422–435.
McDaniel, M. A., &Kearney, E. M. (1984). Optimal learning strategies and their spontaneous use: The importance of task-appropriate processing.Memory & Cognition,12, 361–373.
Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A.,Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., &Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 291–300.
Raaijmakers, J. G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory.Psychological Review,88, 93–134.
Robinson-Riegler, B., &McDaniel, M. A. (1994). Further constraints on the bizarreness effect: Elaboration at encoding.Memory & Cognition,22, 702–712.
Roenker, D. L., Thompson, C. R., &Brown, S. C. (1971). A comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall.Psychological Bulletin,76, 45–48.
Schmidt, S. R. (1985). Encoding and retrieval processes in 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.
Schmidt, S. R. (1996). Category typicality effects in episodic memory: Testing models of distinctiveness.Memory & Cognition,24, 595–607.
Slamecka, N. J., &Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 589–607.
Stein, B. S., Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Owings, R. A., Vye, N. J., &McGraw, W. (1982). Differences in the precision of selfgenerated elaborations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 399–405.
Stein, B. S., Littlefield, J., Bransford, J. D., &Persampieri, M. (1984). Elaboration and knowledge acquisition.Memory & Cognition,12, 522–529.
Winograd, E. (1981). Elaboration and distinctiveness in memory for faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 181–190.
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
Waddill, P.J., McDaniel, M.A. Distinctiveness effects in recall:. Memory & Cognition 26, 108–120 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211374
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211374