Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  • Log in
  1. Home
  2. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
  3. Article
The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

Increasing word distinctiveness eliminates the picture superiority effect in recognition: Evidence for the physical-distinctiveness account

04 September 2018

Tyler M. Ensor, Aimée M. Surprenant & Ian Neath

A context-change account of temporal distinctiveness

25 March 2019

Brian M. Siefke, Troy A. Smith & Per B. Sederberg

The effect of shared distinctiveness on source memory: An event-related potential study

24 August 2020

Michael Weigl, Hong Hanh Pham, … Timm Rosburg

One mirror effect: The regularities of recognition memory

04 October 2018

Andrew Hilford, Murray Glanzer, … Laurence T. Maloney

Accounting for item-level variance in recognition memory: Comparing word frequency and contextual diversity

22 November 2021

Brendan T. Johns

SOLID-Similar object and lure image database

25 February 2019

Darya Frank, Oliver Gray & Daniela Montaldi

Memory & Cognition: The first 40 years

02 October 2020

Colin M. MacLeod

Modeling list-strength and spacing effects using version 3 of the retrieving effectively from memory (REM.3) model and its superimposition-of-similar-images assumption

02 January 2020

Tyler M. Ensor, Aimée M. Surprenant & Ian Neath

Measuring memory is harder than you think: How to avoid problematic measurement practices in memory research

19 October 2022

Timothy F. Brady, Maria M. Robinson, … John T. Wixted

Download PDF
  • Published: March 1995

The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did

  • R. Reed Hunt1 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 2, pages 105–112 (1995)Cite this article

  • 5228 Accesses

  • 187 Citations

  • 15 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

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.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, M. W. (1894). Association.Psychological Review,1, 476–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, M. W. (1896). Association: An essay analytic and experimental.Psychological Review Monograph Supplements,2.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, R. G. (1976).Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Green, R. T. (1956). Surprise as a factor in the von Restorff effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,52, 340–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. F. (1971).Verbal learning and retention. New York: Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henle, M. (1986).1879 and all that: Essays in the history of psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgard, E. R., &Bower, G. H. (1975).Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. R., &Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Hunt, R. R., &McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. R., &Mitchell, D. B. (1982). Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,8, 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, W. O., &Postman, L. (1948). Isolation and spread of effect in serial learning.American Journal of Psychology,61, 214–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. (1929). Primacy, recency, frequency, and vividness.Journal of Experimental Psychology,12, 58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kausler, D. H. (1974).Psychology of verbal learning and memory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, W., &von Restorff, H. (1935). Analyse von Vorgängen im Spurenfeld: Zur theorie der reproduktion.Psychologische Forschung,19, 56–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 517–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., &Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity.Psychological Review,100, 254–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Osgood, C. E. (1953).Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillsbury, W. B., &Raush, H. L. (1943). An extension of the Köhler-Restorff inhibition phenomenon.American Journal of Psychology,56, 293–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundus, D.(1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology,89, 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory?Memory & Cognition,19, 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titchener, E. B. (1915).A textbook of psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Buskirk, W. L. (1932). An experimental study of vividness in learning and retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology,15, 563–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Restorff, H. (1933). Über die Wirkung von Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld.Psychologische Forschung,18, 299–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W. P. (1965). Review of the historical, empirical, and theoretical status of the von Restorff phenomenon.Psychological Bulletin,63, 410–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S. (1938).Experimental psychology. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth, R. S., &Schlosberg, H. (1954).Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, 27412-5002, Greensboro, NC

    R. Reed Hunt

Authors
  1. R. Reed Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Reed Hunt.

Additional information

This paper was presented to the meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Washington, D.C., November 1993, and the work was supported by a grant from NICHHD (HD 256587). Mark McDaniel, Steve Schmidt, and Endel Tulving provided helpful criticism of the manuscript. Special thanks to Henry L. Roediger for his encouragement on this project. Elizabeth Denny, Mary Henle, Cheryl Logan, Rebekah Kelly, and Christine Pivetta provided helpful comments on the work. The translation of von Restorff’s paper was done by Andrea Dorsch. The English translation of von Restorff’s paper can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http: //www.uncg.edu/~huntrr/vonrestorff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunt, R.R. The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2, 105–112 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214414

Download citation

  • Received: 11 April 1994

  • Accepted: 17 November 1994

  • Issue Date: March 1995

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214414

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Serial Position
  • Isolation Effect
  • Nonsense Syllable
  • Perceptual Salience
  • Unrelated Item
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not logged in - 3.239.117.1

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.