Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 105–112 | Cite as

The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did

  • R. Reed Hunt
Article

Abstract

The isolation effect is a well-known memory phenomenon whose discovery is frequently attributed to von Restorff (1933). If all but one item of a list are similar on some dimension, memory for the different item will be enhanced. Modern theory of the isolation effect emphasizes perceptual salience and accompanying differential attention to the isolated item as necessary for enhanced memory. In fact, von Restorff, whose paper is not available in English, presented evidence that perceptual salience is not necessary for the isolation effect. She further argued that the difference between the isolated and surrounding items is not sufficient to produce isolation effects but must be considered in the context of similarity. Von Restorff’s reasoning and data have implications for the use of distinctiveness in contemporary memory research, where distinctiveness is sometimes defined as perceptual salience and sometimes as a theoretical process of discrimination. As a theoretical construct, distinctiveness is a useful description of the effects of differences even in the absence of perceptual salience, but distinctiveness must be used in conjunction with constructs referring to similarity to provide an adequate account of the isolation effect and probably any other memory phenomena.

Keywords

Serial Position Isolation Effect Nonsense Syllable Perceptual Salience Unrelated Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bower, G. H., Thompson-Schill, S., &Tulving, E. (1994). Reducing retroactive interference: An interference analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calkins, M. W. (1894). Association.Psychological Review,1, 476–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calkins, M. W. (1896). Association: An essay analytic and experimental.Psychological Review Monograph Supplements,2.Google Scholar
  5. Craik, F. I. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1979). Elaboration and distinctiveness in episodic memory. In L. Nilsson (Ed.),Perspectives on memory research: Essays in honor of Uppsala University’s 500th anniversary (pp. 145–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Craik, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craik, F. I. M., &Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowder, R. G. (1976).Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Depth, elaboration, and distinctiveness. In L. S. Cermak & F. I.M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 89–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Green, R. T. (1956). Surprise as a factor in the von Restorff effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,52, 340–344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall, J. F. (1971).Verbal learning and retention. New York: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  12. Henle, M. (1986).1879 and all that: Essays in the history of psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hilgard, E. R., &Bower, G. H. (1975).Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Hunt, R. R., &Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunt, R. R., &Elliott, J. M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt, R. R., &Kelly, R. E. S. (in press). Accessing the particular from the general: The power of distinctiveness in the context of organization.Memory & Cognition.Google Scholar
  17. Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt, R. R., &Mitchell, D. B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,8, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenkins, W. O., &Postman, L. (1948). Isolation and spread of effect in serial learning.American Journal of Psychology,61, 214–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jersild, A. (1929). Primacy, recency, frequency, and vividness.Journal of Experimental Psychology,12, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kausler, D. H. (1974).Psychology of verbal learning and memory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  23. Köhler, W., &von Restorff, H. (1935). Analyse von Vorgängen im Spurenfeld: Zur theorie der reproduktion.Psychologische Forschung,19, 56–112.Google Scholar
  24. Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F. I. M., &Jacoby, L. L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition, and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.),Recall and recognition (pp. 75–102). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, D. L. (1979). Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 45–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Osgood, C. E. (1953).Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pillsbury, W. B., &Raush, H. L. (1943). An extension of the Köhler-Restorff inhibition phenomenon.American Journal of Psychology,56, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rundus, D.(1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology,89, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?Memory & Cognition,19, 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Titchener, E. B. (1915).A textbook of psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Van Buskirk, W. L. (1932). An experimental study of vividness in learning and retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology,15, 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von Restorff, H. (1933). Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld.Psychologische Forschung,18, 299–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallace, W. P. (1965). Review of the historical, empirical, and theoretical status of the von Restorff phenomenon.Psychological Bulletin,63, 410–424.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Watkins, O. C., &Watkins, M. J. (1975). Build up of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,1, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Woodworth, R. S. (1938).Experimental psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  38. Woodworth, R. S., &Schlosberg, H. (1954).Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North CarolinaGreensboro

Personalised recommendations