Value-directed memory effects on item and context memory

Abstract

The ability to prioritize learning some information over others when that information is considered important or valuable is known as value-directed remembering. In these experiments, we investigate how value influences different aspects of memory, including item memory (memory for the to-be-learned materials) and context memory (memory for peripheral details that occurred when studying items) to get a better understanding of how people prioritize learning information. In this investigation, participants encoded words associated with a range of values (binned into higher, medium, and lower value in Experiment 1, and into higher and lower value in Experiment 2) for a subsequent memory test that measured item memory (Is this item old or new?) as well as both objective context memory (memory for an objectively verifiable contextual detail: In which voice was this item spoken?) and subjective context memory (How many visual, auditory, and extraneous thoughts/feelings can you remember associated with this item?). Results indicated that value influenced item memory but had no effect on objective context memory in both Experiments. In Experiment 2, results showed better subjective context memory for multiple episodic details for higher-value relative to lower-value materials. Overall, these findings suggest that value has a strong influence over some aspects of memory, but not others. This work gives a richer understanding of how people prioritize learning more important over less important information.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. 1.

    Because we were interested in examining the effects of value and order (value before, value after) on memory, we saw it as essential to include an orienting task to induce participant attention to all stimuli on a trial-by-trial basis. Without such a task, it is possible that participants could elect to simply ignore lower-value stimuli in the value before condition, as a way to improve memory for higher value items, which would impede our ability to truly measure memory effects in this experiment. Given this possibility, we chose to use an orienting task (syllable task) to make it more likely participants were attending to all trials.

  2. 2.

    In designing this experiment, we considered expanding our objective measures to include other objective contextual details (font type, font color); however, we elected against this procedure because we did not want the retrieval phase to be unduly burdensome to the participants. Given that participants were already making many retrieval judgments for each retrieval trial, we decided to focus on only one objective context measure (source memory).

  3. 3.

    Since participants were using a range of 1 (no details) to 3 (a lot of details) for MCQ ratings, the mean scores for each subjective contextual detail (visual, auditory, thoughts, and feelings) should be interpreted with this range in mind. For instance, if the mean rating for visual details is around 2, this translates into participants subjectively reporting they can retrieve a few visual details for a given trial type. In this example, this could translate to participants remembering a few visual details (like font color), but not other visual details.

  4. 4.

    Although our stimuli had a valence component (positive, negative adjectives), we did not design this experiment to look at the factor of valence in our primary ANOVA analyses, and thus Experiment 1 was not powered to run analyses including valence. However, to evaluate whether valence affected memory data, we performed a paired-samples t test comparing item memory for valence. Results showed no significance difference for positive words (M = 0.45, SD = 0.11) relative to negative words (M = 0.45, SD = 0.11), t(71) = −.33, p < .74, d = −.04.

  5. 5.

    We also calculated item memory using the signal detection measure d′, which takes into account both item hits as well as item false alarms (Snodgrass & Corwin, 1988). We entered d′ scores into a 3 (value: higher, medium, lower) × 2 (order: value before, value after) ANOVA, as in our primary analysis. Results of this analysis fully replicated our primary analysis (based on hits − false alarms): we observed a value effect, F(2, 142) = 6.37, p = .005, ηp2 = .11, but no effect of order, F(1, 71) = 0.12, p = .78, ηp2 = .00, or interaction, F(2, 142) = 0.45, p = .64, ηp2 = .01.

  6. 6.

    The model employed an effect coding scheme for order, which allowed us to set the value-before trials as the reference group with which to compare with value-after trials. This effect coding scheme allows for easier interpretation of any interaction effects, compared to dummy/treatment coding (Singmann & Kellen, 2019).

  7. 7.

    Because we had a continuous range of values (1–8) in our stimuli, we ran an additional analysis to assess whether objective context memory improved as value increased. To do so, we conducted a logistic regression. Value (1–8) and order (value before, value after) were included as predictors. Results showed that memory did not differ as a function of value, χ2(1) = .37, b = .008, p = .54, or order, χ2(1) = .09, p = .76. In a subsequent model, we included an interaction to assess whether value and order jointly affected performance. The interaction term was not significant, χ2(7) = 3.71, p = .81, and the main effects remained nonsignificant.

  8. 8.

    Because performance on our objective context measure was close to chance, we performed an analysis comparing objective context memory with chance-level performance. Results showed that only trials associated with medium-value items were significantly above chance, ts > 1.75, ps < .05.

  9. 9.

    In Experiment 2, we chose to associate items with four different values (1–4). Although past VDR studies using few values to associate with items have used values at extreme ends of a scale, such as using only a few higher values (i.e., 7 and 9) and a few lower values (i.e., 1 and 3; Elliott et al., 2020), we elected not to use values at the extreme ends of a value range, because we wanted to replicate our use a continuous range of values as we did in Experiment 1. Further, because some of our ancillary analyses treat value as a continuous variable (logistic regression), using a continuous range of values allows us to perform analogous analyses in Experiment 2, which allows for more direct comparison to the effects identified in Experiment 1.

  10. 10.

    We also performed a logistic regression on the objective context memory measure, as in Experiment 1. Results showed that memory did not differ as a function of value, χ2(1) = .04, b = −.005, p = .84, or order, χ2(1) = 1.86, p = .17. In a subsequent model, we included an interaction to assess whether value and order affected objective context memory. The interaction term was not significant, χ2(3) = .33, p = .95, and the main effects remained nonsignificant.

  11. 11.

    We performed an analysis comparing objective context memory with chance level performance. Results showed that only value before trials (higher, lower) were above chance, ts > 1.93, ps < .05.

  12. 12.

    Because we had both positive and negative stimuli in this data, we ran additional 2 (value: higher, lower) × 2 (order: value before, value after) × 2 (valence: positive, negative) ANOVAs for item, objective context, and subjective context memory (visual, auditory, thoughts and feelings). Results showed no significant effects of valence or valence interactions for item, objective context, and two of the subjective context details (visual, auditory), Fs < 2.60, ps > .11. There was a main effect of valence for thoughts and feelings, F(1, 76) = 5.66, p = .02, ηp2 = .09, however, which was driven by more subjective reported details for negative (M = 1.99, SE = .07) than positive items (M = 1.94, SE = .07).

References

  1. Adcock, R. A., Thangavel, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Knutson, B., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2006). Reward-motivated learning: mesolimbic activation precedes memory formation. Neuron, 50(3), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ariel, R., & Castel, A. D. (2014). Eyes wide open: Enhanced pupil dilation when selectively studying important information. Experimental Brain Research, 232(1), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3744-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Basden, B. H., Basden, D. R., & Gargano, G. J. (1993). Directed forgetting in implicit and explicit memory tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(3), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.3.603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Castel, A. D. (2005). Memory for grocery prices in younger and older adults: The role of schematic support. Psychology and Aging, 20(4), 718–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Castel, A. D. (2007). The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: Evaluative processing and value-directed remembering. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 225–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(07)48006-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Castel, A. D., Balota, D. A., & McCabe, D. P. (2009). Memory efficiency and the strategic control of attention at encoding: Impairments of value-directed remembering in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 23(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014888

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Castel, A. D., Benjamin, A., Craik, F., & Watkins, M. (2002). The effects of aging on selectivity and control in short-term recall. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1078–1085. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Castel, A. D., Farb, N. A., & Craik, F. I. (2007). Memory for general and specific value information in younger and older adults: Measuring the limits of strategic control. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Castel, A. D., Humphreys, K. L., Lee, S. S., Galván, A., Balota, D. A., & McCabe, D. P. (2011). The development of memory efficiency and value-directed remembering across the life span: A cross-sectional study of memory and selectivity. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1553–1564. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025623

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Castel, A. D., Lee, S. S., Humphreys, K. L., & Moore, A. N. (2011). Memory capacity, selective control, and value-directed remembering in children with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Neuropsychology, 25(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020298

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Castel, A. D., Murayama, K., Friedman, M. C., McGillivray, S., & Link, I. (2013). Selecting valuable information to remember: Age-related differences and similarities in self-regulated learning. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, M. S., Cheng, L. Y., Paller, K. A., & Reber, P. J. (2019). Separate memory-enhancing effects of reward and strategic encoding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(11), 1658–1673. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01438

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, M. S., Rissman, J., Hovhannisyan, M., Castel, A. D., & Knowlton, B. J. (2017). Free recall test experience potentiates strategy-driven effects of value on memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(10), 1581–1601. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, M. S., Rissman, J., Suthana, N. A., Castel, A. D., & Knowlton, B. J. (2016). Effects of aging on value-directed modulation of semantic network activity during verbal learning. NeuroImage, 125, 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. DeLozier, S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2015). The impact of value-directed remembering on the own-race bias. Acta Psychologica, 154, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Aging and deficits in associative memory: What is the role of strategy production?. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eich, T. S., & Castel, A. D. (2016). The cognitive control of emotional versus value-based information in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 31(5), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(5), 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.5.588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elliott, B. L., & Brewer, G. A. (2019). Divided attention selectively impairs value-directed encoding. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Elliott, B. L., McClure, S. M., & Brewer, G. A. (2020). Individual differences in value-directed remembering. Cognition, 201, Article 104275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fliessbach, K., Weis, S., Klaver, P., Elger, C. E., & Weber, B. (2006). The effect of word concreteness on recognition memory. NeuroImage, 32(3), 1413–1421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Frankenstein, A. N., McCurdy, M. P., Sklenar, A. M., Pandya, R., Szpunar, K. K., & Leshikar, E. D. (2021). Future thinking about social targets: The influence of prediction outcome on memory. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104390

  24. Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Are we aware of our ability to forget? Metacognitive predictions of directed forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 39(8), 1448–1456. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0115-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gallucci, M. (2019). GAMLj: General analyses for linear models [jamovi module]. https://gamlj.github.io/

  26. Giannakopoulos, K., McCurdy, M. P., Sklenar, A. M., Frankenstein, A. N., Urban Levy, P., & Leshikar, E. D. (in press). Using a less constrained practice test enhances the testing effect. American Journal of Psychology

  27. Hargis, M. B., & Castel, A. D. (2017). Younger and older adults’ associative memory for social information: The role of information importance. Psychology and Aging, 32(4), 325–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000171

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayes, M. G., Kelly, A. J., & Smith, A. D. (2013). Working memory and the strategic control of attention in older and younger adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(2), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hennessee, J. P., Castel, A. D., & Knowlton, B. J. (2017). Recognizing what matters: Value improves recognition by selectively enhancing recollection. Journal of Memory and Language, 94(6), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.12.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hennessee, J. P., Knowlton, B. J., & Castel, A. D. (2018). The effects of value on context-item associative memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 33(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hennessee, J. P., Patterson, T. K., Castel, A. D., & Knowlton, B. J. (2019). Forget me not: Encoding processes in value-directed remembering. Journal of Memory and Language, 106(6), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hertzog, C., McGuire, C. L., & Lineweaver, T. T. (1998). Aging, attributions, perceived control, and strategy use in a free recall task. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 5(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1076/anec.5.2.85.601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hunt, R. R. (2006). The concept of distinctiveness in memory research. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (p. 3–25). Oxford University Press: New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.003.0001

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90138-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. James, T., Rajah, M. N., & Duarte, A. (2019). Multielement episodic encoding in young and older adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(6), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01384

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Jennings, J. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1993). Automatic versus intentional uses of memory: Aging, attention, and control. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(4), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.4.371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jurica, P. J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Monitoring item and source information: Evidence for a negative generation effect in source memory. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 648–656. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kensinger, E. A. (2009). Emotional memory across the adult lifespan. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kensinger, E. A., & Corkin, S. (2003). Memory enhancement for emotional words: Are emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words? Memory & Cognition, 31, 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuhns, J. M., & Touron, D. R. (2019). Schematic support increases memory strategy use in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 35(3), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Leach, R. C., McCurdy, M. P., Trumbo, M., Matzen, L. E., & Leshikar, E. D. (2018). Differential age effects of transcranial stimulation on associative memory in younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 74(7), 1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Leshikar, E. D., Cassidy, B. S., & Gutchess, A. H. (2016). Similarity to the self influences cortical recruitment during impression formation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(2), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-015-0390-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Leshikar, E. D., & Duarte, A. (2014). Medial prefrontal cortex supports source memory for self-referenced materials in young and older adults. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Leshikar, E. D., Duarte, A., & Hertzog, C. (2012). Task-selective memory effects for successful implemented encoding strategies. PLoS ONE, 7(5), Article e38160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Leshikar, E. D., Dulas, M. R., & Duarte, A. (2015). Self-referencing enhances recollection in both young and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22(4), 388–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Leshikar, E. D., & Gutchess, A. H. (2015). Similarity to the self affects impression memory for others. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Leshikar, E. D., Gutchess, A. H., Hebrank, A. C., Sutton, B. P., & Park, D. C. (2010). The impact of increased relational encoding demands on frontal and hippocampal function in older adults. Cortex, 46(4), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Leshikar, E. D., Leach, R. C., McCurdy, M. P., Trumbo, M., Sklenar, A. M., Frankenstein, A. N., & Matzen, L. E. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves recall but not recognition memory. Neuropsychologia, 106(11), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Leshikar, E. D., Park, J. M., & Gutchess, A. H. (2015). Similarity to the self affects impression memory in younger and older adults. The Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(5), 737–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Directed forgetting. In J. M. Golding & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 1–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Matzen, L. E., Trumbo, M., Leach, R. C., & Leshikar, E. D. (2015). Effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on associative memory. Brain Research, 1624(10), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. McCurdy, M. P., Frankenstein, A. N, Sklenar, A. M., & Leshikar, E. D. (2020). Fewer generation constraints increase the generation effect for item and source memory through enhanced relational processing. Memory, 28(5)598–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1749283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. McCurdy, M. P., Frankenstein, A. N, Sklenar, A. M., & Leshikar, E. D. (in press). Examining the relationship between generation constraint and memory. Memory & Cognition.

  55. McCurdy, M. P., Leach, R., & Leshikar, E. D. (2019). Fewer constraints influence generation effect for source memory in younger, but not older adults. Open Psychology, 1(1), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1515/psych-2018-0012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. McCurdy, M. P., Leach, R. C., & Leshikar, E. D. (2017). The generation effect revisited: Fewer constraints enhances item and context memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McCurdy, M. P., Viechtbauer, W., Sklenar, A. M., Frankenstein, A., & Leshikar, E. D. (2020). Theories of the generation effect and the impact of generation constraint: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 1139–1165. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01762-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Meyers, Z. R., McCurdy, M. P., Leach, R. C., Thomas, A. K., & Leshikar, E. D. (2020). Effects of survival processing on item and context memory: Enhanced memory for survival-relevant details. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02244

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Middlebrooks, C. D., Kerr, T., & Castel, A. D. (2017). Selectively distracted: Divided attention and memory for important information. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1103–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Middlebrooks, C. D., McGillivray, S., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2016). Memory for allergies and health foods: How younger and older adults strategically remember critical health information. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(3), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Middlebrooks, C. D., Murayama, K., & Castel, A. D. (2016). The value in rushing: Memory and selectivity when short on time. Acta Psychologica, 170, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.06.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mulligan, N. W., Rawson, K. A., Peterson, D. J., & Wissman, K. T. (2018). The replicability of the negative testing effect: Differences across participant populations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(5), 752–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Naveh-Benjamin, M., Brav, T. K., & Levy, O. (2007). The associative memory deficit of older adults: The role of strategy utilization. Psychology and Aging, 22(1), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.1.202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Craik, F. I. (1995). Memory for context and its use in item memory: Comparisons of younger and older persons. Psychology and Aging, 10(2), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.10.2.284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ochsner, K. N. (2000). Are affective events richly recollected or simply familiar? The experience and process of recognizing feelings past. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Paivio, A., Khan, M., & Begg, I. (2000). Concreteness and relational effects on recall of adjective–noun pairs. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 54(3), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Paivio, A., Walsh, M., & Bons, T. (1994). Concreteness effects on memory: When and why? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1196–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Reed, A. E., Chan, L., & Mikels, J. A. (2014). Meta-analysis of the age-related positivity effect: Age differences in preferences for positive over negative information. Psychology and Aging, 29(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Robison, M. K., & Unsworth, N. (2017). Working memory capacity, strategic allocation of study time, and value-directed remembering. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rugg, M. D., Vilberg, K. L., Mattson, J. T., Sarah, S. Y., Johnson, J. D., & Suzuki, M. (2012). Item memory, context memory and the hippocampus: fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia, 50(13), 3070–3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.06.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Schindler, J., Schindler, S., & Reinhard, M. A. (2019). Effectiveness of self-generation during learning is dependent on individual differences in need for cognition. Frontline Learning Research, 7(2), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i2.407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schwartz, S. T., Siegel, A. L., & Castel, A. D. (2020). Strategic encoding and enhanced memory for positive value-location associations. Memory & Cognition, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01034-4. Advance online publication.

  73. Shigemune, Y., Tsukiura, T., Kambara, T., & Kawashima, R. (2014). Remembering with gains and losses: Effects of monetary reward and punishment on successful encoding activation of source memories. Cerebral Cortex, 24(5), 1319–1331. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Siegel, A. L., & Castel, A. D. (2018a). Memory for important item-location associations in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 33(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Siegel, A. L., & Castel, A. D. (2018b). The role of attention in remembering important item-location associations. Memory & Cognition, 46(8), 1248–1262. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0834-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Singmann, H., & Kellen, D. (2019). An introduction to mixed models for experimental psychology. In D. H. Spieler & E. Schumacher (Eds.), New methods in cognitive psychology (pp. 4–31). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Spaniol, J., Schain, C., Bowen, H. J. (2014). Reward-enhanced memory in younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69(5), 730–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbt044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Spencer, W. D., & Raz, N. (1995). Differential effects of aging on memory for content and context: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 10(4), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.10.4.527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Stefanidi, A., Ellis, D. M., & Brewer, G. A. (2018). Free recall dynamics in value-directed remembering. Journal of Memory and Language, 100, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Wenzel, K., & Reinhard, M.-A. (2019). Relatively unintelligent individuals do not benefit from intentionally hindered learning: The role of desirable difficulties. Intelligence, 77, Article 101405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Wittmann, B. C., Schott, B. H., Guderian, S., Frey, J. U., Heinze, H. J., & Düzel, E. (2005). Reward-related FMRI activation of dopaminergic midbrain is associated with enhanced hippocampus-dependent long-term memory formation. Neuron, 45(3), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Open practices statement

Data from this report are available upon reasonable request.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric D. Leshikar.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Villaseñor, J.J., Sklenar, A.M., Frankenstein, A.N. et al. Value-directed memory effects on item and context memory. Mem Cogn (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01153-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Value-directed remembering
  • Item memory
  • Source memory
  • Context memory
  • Memory characteristics questionnaire