The novelty effect: Support for the Novelty-Encoding Hypothesis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Revisiting the novelty effect: When familiarity, not novelty, enhances memory
2010
Reports of superior memory for novel relative to familiar material have figured prominently in recent theories of memory. However, such novelty effects are incongruous with long-standing observations that familiar items are remembered better. In 2 experiments, we explored whether this discrepancy was explained by differences in the type of familiarity under consideration or by differences in the difficulty of discriminating targets from lures, which may lead to source confusion for familiar but not novel targets. In Experiment 1, we directly tested whether previously observed novelty effects were the result of novelty, discrimination demands, or both. We used linguistic materials (proverbs) to replicate the novelty effect but found that it occurred only when familiar items were subject to source confusion. In Experiment 2, to examine better how novelty influences episodic memory, we used experimentally familiar, pre-experimentally familiar, and novel proverbs in a paradigm designed to overcome discrimination demand confounds. Memory was better for both types of familiar proverbs. These results indicate that familiarity, not novelty, leads to better episodic memory for studied items, regardless of whether familiarity is experimentally induced or based on prior semantic knowledge. We argue that proposals that state that information is encoded better if it is novel are based on over-generalizations of effects arising from the distinctiveness of novel materials.
Distinctiveness effects in recall
Memory & Cognition, 1998
Unusual information is generally recalled better than common information (the distinctiveness effect). Differential processing accounts propose that the effect occurs because unusual material elicits encoding processes that are different from those elicited by common material, and strong versions of these accounts predict distinctiveness effects in between-list as well as within-list designs. Experiment 1 employed a between-list design and manipulated presentation rate. Contrary to differential processing predictions, no distinctiveness effect emerged, nor did recall patterns for atypical versus common sentences differ as a function of presentation rate. Experiment 2 further tested differential processing accounts as well as representation accounts via a within-list manipulation and conditions that included experimenter-provided elaborations. Distinctiveness effects emerged in all conditions and, contrary to differential processing predictions, the pattern of recall in the elaborated conditions did not differ from that in the unelaborated conditions. Taken together, the results of this study lend more support to a representation view that suggests mechanisms related to the representation and subsequent retrievability of elements in the memory record playa major role in the distinctiveness effect. One of the more robust findings reported in the memory literature is that stimuli that are in some way unusual are generally remembered better than stimuli that are not
A Novel Approach to Understanding Novelty Effects in Memory
2005
Enhanced memory for oddball items has been long established, but the basis for these effects is not well understood. The present work offers a novel way to think about novelty that clarifies the roles of isolation and differentiation in establishing new memories. According to the isolation account, items that are highly dissimilar to other items are better remembered. In contrast, recent category learning studies suggest that oddball items are better remembered because they must be differentiated from other similar items. The current work pits the isolation and differentiation accounts against each other. The results suggest that differentiation, not isolation, leads to more accurate memory for deviant items. In contrast, gains for isolated items are attributable to reduced confusion with other items, as opposed to preferential storage.
1984
Two experiments examining the "distinctiveness of encoding" hypothesis are reported. The hypothesis suggests that specific forms of processing of events may result in the formation of more exact perceptual descriptions and thus more distinctive records in memory. The two experiments reported address shortcomings in previous research on distinctiveness by comparing various forms of distinctiveness and their effectiveness in long-term recall. In one experiment, subjects were given one of four forms of data on 20 specific words: (1) the word, its definition, a word link for memorability, and the word link used in a sentence; (2) the word, definition, and the request to use the word in a sentence; (3) the word and definition; and (4) the words to be learned and their definitions, scrambled. The fourth condition was the distinctive one. After 20 minutes, a multiple-choice test was given. The first three groups performed significantly better than the fourth group. In the second experiment, the same subjects were asked to retake the earlier multiple-choice test without the earlier preparation. The same results were obtained. It is concluded that a distinctive, unfamiliar form of processing words may require additional learning time or may result in limited recall. Further research is recommended to examine the role of greater processing time, prior knowledge, and individual processing rapidity. (MSE)
Journal of Memory and Language, 1998
Dual process models of recognition have identified two underlying processes which contribute to recognition performance: recollection, which involves the retrieval of qualitative information regarding an event occurrence, and familiarity, which represents a generalized feeling of prior occurrence. It has been proposed that recognition and free recall may be related because both involve the retrieval of qualitative event information. To examine this possibility, we compared recognition and free recall under different levels of word frequency, presentation frequency, and distinctiveness of semantic encoding. All three variables dissociated across recognition and recall. Most importantly, shifting the semantic orienting task between preexposure and study lists greatly facilitated recognition, yet left free recall unaffected. This benefit occurred primarily because the shift enabled subjects to more efficiently reject distractors that were familiar as a result of preexposure, but not encoded on the appropriate dimension. Since subjects in recall conditions were not prone to intrusions as a function of preexposure, and, in fact, could not intentionally provide sizable numbers of these items, such a selection mechanism was unnecessary. The current findings, in conjunction with those from process dissociation studies, emphasize the role of recollection in terms of selective responding in the presence of highly familiar competitors. Retrieved information which is not distinctive cannot serve as a basis for excluding alternative sources, and therefore will not contribute to performance nor be reflected in estimates of recollection. As a result, recollection estimates may often diverge from free recall performance. ᭧ 1998
Item-specific processing reduces false memories
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2004
We examined the effect of item-specific and relational encoding instructions on false recognition in two experiments in which the DRM paradigm was used (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Type of encoding (item-specific or relational) was manipulated between subjects in Experiment 1 and within subjects in Experiment 2. Decision-based explanations (e.g., the distinctiveness heuristic) predict reductions in false recognition in between-subjects designs, but not in within-subjects designs, because they are conceptualized as global shifts in decision criteria. Memory-based explanations predict reductions in false recognition in both designs, resulting from enhanced recollection of item-specific details. False recognition was reduced following item-specific encoding instructions in both experiments, favoring a memory-based explanation. These results suggest that providing unique cues for the retrieval of individual studied items results in enhanced discrimination between those studied items and critical lures. Conversely, enhancing the similarity of studied items results in poor discrimination among items within a particular list theme. These results are discussed in terms of the item-specific/ relational framework (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993).
Test-expectancy and word-frequency effects in recall and recognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 1980
To determine if people who expect a recall (RCL) test encode a list of to-beremembered (TBR) words differently than those who expect a recognition (RON) test, people were first induced to expect a RCL or a RON test and then were asked to remember a critical list consisting of both high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) words. Following presentation of the critical list, different groups received either an expected RCL test, an unexpected RCL test, an expected RON test, or an unexpected RON test. There were two main results: (a) People who expected RCL did better in both RCL and RON than did people who expected RON, but to a much greater degree for HF than LF words, (b) The standard word-frequency effect was obtained; namely, HF words were better recalled but more poorly recognized than LF words. These data were interpreted within the framework of Anderson and Bower's generaterecognize theory as indicating that, compared to people expecting a RON test, people expecting a RCL test more variably encode the semantic interpretations of the TBR word. The implications that these data have for Glanzer and Bowies' theory of the word-frequency effect and for classroom examinations were also discussed. Anderson and Bower's Generate-Recognize Theory of Recall and Recognition Two Kinds of Encoding: Node Tagging and Pathway Tagging Anderson and Bower's version of generate-recognize theory (e.g., Anderson, 1972; Anderson & Bower, 1972, 1974) provides one framework within which to interpret test-expectancy-induced differences in en
Source-constrained retrieval influences the encoding of new information
Memory & Cognition, 2011
Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, and Rhodes (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 852-857, 2005) showed that new words presented as foils among a list of old words that had been deeply encoded were themselves subsequently better recognized than new words presented as foils among a list of old words that had been shallowly encoded. In Experiment 1, by substituting a deep-versus-shallow imagery manipulation for the levels-of-processing manipulation, we demonstrated that the effect is robust and that it generalizes, also occurring with a different type of encoding. In Experiment 2, we provided more direct evidence for context-related encoding during tests of deeply encoded words, showing enhanced priming for foils presented among deeply encoded targets when participants made the same deep-encoding judgments on those items as had been made on the targets during study. In Experiment 3, we established that the findings from Experiment 2 are restricted to this specific deep judgment task and are not a general consequence of these foils being associated with deeply encoded items. These findings provide support for the sourceconstrained retrieval hypothesis of Jacoby, Shimizu, Daniels, and Rhodes: New information can be influenced by how surrounding items are encoded and retrieved, as long as the surrounding items recruit a coherent mode of processing.
Re-exposure to studied items at test does not influence false recognition
Memory, 2006
In two experiments, we investigated whether re-exposure to previously studied items at test affects false recognition in the DRM paradigm. Furthermore, we examined whether exposure to the critical lure at test influences memory for subsequently presented study items. In Experiment 1, immediately following each studied DRM list, participants were given a recognition test. The tests were constructed such that the number of studied items preceding the critical lure varied from zero to five. Neither false recognition for critical lures nor accurate memory for studied items was affected by this manipulation. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern of results under speeded conditions at test. Both experiments confirm that exposure to previously studied items at test does not affect true or false recognition in the DRM paradigm. This pattern strongly suggests that retrieval processes do not influence false recognition in the DRM paradigm.