Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The bizarre mnemonic

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Five experiments measured effects of bizarre contexts on the free recall of noun triplets after brief retention intervals. More triplets were remembered from bizarre than from common contexts in short mixed lists (12 sentences) when the sentences were presented at a controlled (10 seconds/sentence) rate, regardless of incidental task (rating images for bizarreness, vividness, or memorability). The average number of words/sentence recalled, however, tended to be higher for common than for bizarre contexts. No memory benefit from bizarreness was found for pure lists nor for lists containing more than six triplets in bizarre contexts. The bizarreness effect was less when the subject controlled the rate of presentation. A sixth experiment, which tested recall after immediate and two-day retention intervals, found that the Bizarre/Common Context by Pure/Mixed List interaction increased over longer retention intervals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bergfeld, V., Choate, L., & Kroll, N. (1982). The effect of bizarre imagery on memory as a function of delay: Reconfirmation of the interaction effect. Journal of Mental Imagery, 6, 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G., & McDaniel, M. (1987). A framework for understanding the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery. In M. A. McDaniels & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imaginal and mnemonic processes (pp. 78–102). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlebacher, A. (1977). Design and analysis of experiments contrasting the within-and between-subjects manipulation of the independent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 212–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlebacher, A. (1978). The analysis of multifactor experiments designed to contrast the within- and between-subjects manipulation of the independent variables. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 10, 833–840

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, N., Schepeler, E., & Angin, K (1986). Bizarre imagery: The misremembered mnemonic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 42–53

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M., & Einstein, G. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 54–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, R. (1980). Image bizarreness in incidental learning. Psychological Reports, 46, 427–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T., & Vining, S. (1978). Effect of semantic versus structural processing on long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 198–209

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, E., & Wolford, C. (1982). Effect of delay in testing on retention of plausible versus bizarre mental images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 148–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Olton, R. (1969). The effect of a mnemonic upon the retention of paired-associate verbal material. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8, 43–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pra Baldi, A., De Beni, R., Cornoldi, C., & Cavedon, A. (1985). Some conditions for the occurrence of the bizarreness effect in free recall. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 427–436

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, E., & Soloway, R. (1986). On forgetting the locations of things stored in special places. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 366–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollen, K., & Cox, S. (1981) Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 386–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollen, K., & Margres, M. (1987) Bizarreness and the multi-process model. In M. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imaginal and mnemonic processes (pp. 103–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollen, K., Weber, A., & Lowry, D. (1972). Bizarreness versus interaction of mental images as determinants of learning. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 518–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarmey, A. (1984) Bizarreness effects in mental imagery. In A. Sheikh (Ed.), International Review of Mental Imagery, Vol. 1 (pp. 57–76). New York: Human Sciences Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, 95616, Davis, CA, USA

    Neal E. A. Kroll & Shi-Fen Tu

Authors
  1. Neal E. A. Kroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shi-Fen Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kroll, N.E.A., Tu, SF. The bizarre mnemonic. Psychol. Res 50, 28–37 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309407

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309407

Keywords

Search

Navigation