Memory & Cognition

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 198–211 | Cite as

Relational and item-specific influences on generate–recognize processes in recall

  • Melissa J. Guynn
  • Mark A. McDaniel
  • Garrett L. Strosser
  • Juan M. Ramirez
  • Erica H. Castleberry
  • Kristen H. Arnett
Article

Abstract

The generate–recognize model and the relational–item-specific distinction are two approaches to explaining recall. In this study, we consider the two approaches in concert. Following Jacoby and Hollingshead (Journal of Memory and Language 29:433–454, 1990), we implemented a production task and a recognition task following production (1) to evaluate whether generation and recognition components were evident in cued recall and (2) to gauge the effects of relational and item-specific processing on these components. An encoding task designed to augment item-specific processing (anagram-transposition) produced a benefit on the recognition component (Experiments 13) but no significant benefit on the generation component (Experiments 13), in the context of a significant benefit to cued recall. By contrast, an encoding task designed to augment relational processing (category-sorting) did produce a benefit on the generation component (Experiment 3). These results converge on the idea that in recall, item-specific processing impacts a recognition component, whereas relational processing impacts a generation component.

Keywords

Memory Recall Recognition Memory models 

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1972). Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall. Psychological Review, 79, 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision processes in recognition memory. In D. H. Krantz & R. C. Atkinson (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology: I. Learning, memory and thinking (pp. 243–293). Oxford: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Bahrick, H. P. (1970). Two-phase model for prompted recall. Psychological Review, 77, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellezza, F. S. (2003). Evaluation of six multinomial models of conscious and unconscious processes with the recall-recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 779–796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2010). Recollective and nonrecollective recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 425–445.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, D. J. (2006). Assessing distinctiveness: Measures of item-specific and relational processing. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. P. (1987). A dual coding perspective on encoding processes. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 5–32). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 and Memory, 6, 588–598.Google Scholar
  12. Flory, P., & Pring, L. (1995). The effects of data-driven and conceptually driven generation of study items on direct and indirect measures of memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 48A, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glenberg, A. M. (1987). Temporal context and recency. In D. S. Gorfein & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus Centennial Conference (pp. 173–190). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Glenberg, A. M., & Swanson, N. G. (1986). A temporal distinctiveness theory of recency and modality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 3–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Guynn, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1999). Generate-sometimes recognize, sometimes not. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 398–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halamish, V. (2009). Quality control in memory retrieval and reporting: “Front-end” and “back-end” components. Israel: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa.Google Scholar
  17. Hamann, S. B. (1994). Comparing implicit and explicit performance in perceptual and conceptual tasks: Applicability of a generation/recognition model (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 54(9-B), 4949.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, M., & Rajaram, S. (2001). The concreteness effect in implicit and explicit memory tests. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 96–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan, R. M., & Kintsch, W. (1971). Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 562–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunt, R. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacoby, L. L. (1998). Invariance in automatic influences of memory: Toward a user’s guide for the process-dissociation procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 3–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacoby, L. L., Bishara, A. J., Hessels, S., & Toth, J. P. (2005). Aging, subjective experience, and cognitive control: Dramatic false remembering by older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacoby, L. L., & Hollingshead, A. (1990). Toward a generate/recognize model of performance on direct and indirect tests of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 391–422). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & McElree, B. D. (1999). The role of cognitive control: Early selection versus late correction. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 383–400). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, G. V. (1978). Recognition failure and dual mechanisms in recall. Psychological Review, 85, 464–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kinoshita, S. (1989). Generation enhances semantic processing? The role of distinctiveness in the generation effect. Memory & Cognition, 17, 563–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kintsch, W. (1968). Recognition and free recall of organized lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kintsch, W. (1970). Models of free recall and recognition. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory (pp. 331–373). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kintsch, W. (1978). More on recognition failure of recallable words: Implications for generation-recognition models. Psychological Review, 85, 470–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knoedler, A. J., Hellwig, K. A., & Neath, I. (1999). The shift from recency to primacy with increasing delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 474–487.Google Scholar
  35. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mandler, G., Pearlstone, Z., & Koopmans, H. S. (1969). Effects of organization and semantic similarity on recall and recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marschark, M., & Hunt, R. R. (1989). A reexamination of the role of imagery in learning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 710–720.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDaniel, M. A., DeLosh, E. L., & Merritt, P. S. (2000). Order information and retrieval distinctiveness: Recall of common versus bizarre material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1045–1056.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., & Lollis, T. (1988). Qualitative and quantitative considerations in encoding difficulty effects. Memory & Cognition, 16, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mulligan, N. W. (1996). The effects of perceptual interference at encoding on implicit memory, explicit memory, and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1067–1087.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Mulligan, N. W. (2002). The effects of generation on conceptual implicit memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mulligan, N. W. (2006). Conceptual implicit memory and the item-specific – relational distinction. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mulligan, N. W., Guyer, P. S., & Beland, A. (1999). The effects of levels-of-processing and organization on conceptual implicit memory in the category exemplar production test. Memory & Cognition, 27, 633–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mulligan, N. W., & Stone, M. (1999). Attention and conceptual priming: Limits on the effects of divided attention in the category-exemplar production task. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nairne, J. S., Neath, I., Serra, M., & Byun, E. (1997). Positional distinctiveness and ratio rule in free recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nairne, J. S., Pusen, C., & Widner, R. L. (1985). Representation in the mental lexicon: Implications for theories of the generation effect. Memory & Cognition, 13, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. 45–67). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1992). Models for recall and recognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 205–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rappold, V. A., & Hashtroudi, S. (1991). Does organization improve priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 103–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1993). Implicit memory in normal human subjects. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 8, pp. 63–131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, R. E. (2006). Adult age differences in episodic memory: Item-specific, relational and distinctive processing. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (2000). The effects of distinctiveness require reinstatement of organization: The importance of intentional memory instructions. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words. Psychological Review, 69, 344–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watkins, M. J., & Gardiner, J. M. (1979). An appreciation of generate-recognize theory of recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 687–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weldon, M. S., & Colston, H. L. (1995). Dissociating the generation stage in implicit and explicit memory tests: Incidental production can differ from strategic access. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weldon, M. S., & Coyote, K. C. (1996). Failure to find the picture superiority effect in implicit conceptual memory tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 670–686.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa J. Guynn
    • 1
  • Mark A. McDaniel
    • 2
  • Garrett L. Strosser
    • 3
  • Juan M. Ramirez
    • 1
  • Erica H. Castleberry
    • 1
  • Kristen H. Arnett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologySouthern Utah UniversityCedar CityUSA

Personalised recommendations