The Orthographic Distinctiveness Effect on Direct and Indirect Tests of Memory: Delineating the Awareness and Processing Require
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Memory and Language Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 273–291 www.academicpress.com The orthographic distinctiveness effect on direct and indirect tests of memory: delineating the awareness and processing requirementsq Lisa Geraci* and Suparna Rajaram State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA Received 19December 2000; revision received 2 July 2001 Abstract We examined the processing and awareness requirements that mediate superior memory for distinct items in long-term memory by studying the effects of orthographic distinctiveness. Orthographically dis- tinct words are remembered better than common words on the direct test of free recall but not on the indirect test of perceptual identification. These results suggest that the orthographic distinctiveness effect requires test awareness. But interestingly, this distinctiveness effect has also been reported in one indirect test, that of word fragment completion (Hunt & Toth, 1990). We examined the locus of the orthographic distinctiveness effect in the indirect test of word fragment completion and the direct tests of word fragment cued recall and free recall and assessed the role of awareness (Experiment 1) and conceptual processes (Experiments 2a–2c) in mediating this effect. Our results support the proposal that the distinctiveness effect depends on direct reference to the study context and further specify that this effect is mediated, to a large extent, by comparative processes even when distinctiveness emerges from surface-level differences. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. Several studies attest to the intuitive belief (see Hunt, 1995, for details of von Restorff’s that people have very good memory for novel or dissertation). However, the term ‘‘distinctiveness’’ unusual information, often called the distinc- has also been applied to a variety of other phe- tiveness effect. The von Restorff effect (superior nomena, including superior memory for nude memory for isolated items) is cited most often to pictures (Ellis, Detterman, Runci, McCarver, & demonstrate that distinctiveness aids memory Craig, 1971), bizarre sentences (McDaniel, Du- nay, Lyman, & Kerwin, 1988), distinct faces (Light, Kaya-Stuart, & Hollander, 1979), atypical q This research was done in partial fulfillment of the category members (Schmidt, 1985), and words first author’s doctoral dissertation and was supported by with unusual orthographies (Hunt & Elliott, NIH Grant R29MH57345-01 given to the second 1980; Hunt & Mitchell, 1978, 1982; Hunt & Toth, author. 1990). Despite an abundance of studies demon- * Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Psychology, Washington University, One Brookings strating that unusual or distinct information Drive, Campus Box 1125, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, is remembered well, it remains unclear exactly USA. how distinctiveness aids memory (see Schmidt, E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Geraci). 1991). 0749-596X/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII: S0749-596X(02)00008-6 274 L. Geraci, S. Rajaram / Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 273–291 The following experiments are designed to We first consider the implications of these address this question by exploring the nature of findings for the transfer appropriate processing the processing at encoding and retrieval that me- framework (Roediger et al., 1989). According to diates the distinctiveness effect in long-term this framework, performance on both direct and memory. Experiment 1 examines the necessary indirect memory tests benefits to the extent that retrieval conditions for obtaining the distinctive- the conceptual or perceptual processing at test ness effect and tests whether the effect can be ob- recapitulates the same conceptual or perceptual tained using an indirect test of memory. processing that occurred at study. Much research Experiments 2a–2c explore the nature of the supports this view (see Roediger & McDermott, processing at encoding that could explain the ef- 1993 for a review). For example, perceptual ma- fect of distinctiveness on memory tests that differ nipulations involving changes in modality of in their processing demands. presentation (visual versus auditory) at study and We explore these issues using one particular test influence performance on indirect tests, such type of distinctiveness effect, the orthographic as the fragment completion test, which rely on the distinctiveness effect. This effect refers to the perceptual features of the stimulus (Blaxton, 1989; finding that words with unusual letter combina- Graf & Mandler, 1984; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981; tions, such as ‘‘subpoena,’’ are remembered better Rajaram & Roediger, 1993; Srinivas & Roediger, than words with more common letter combina- 1990), but not on indirect tests that rely on the tions, such as ‘‘sailboat’’ (Hunt & Elliott, 1980; meaning of the stimulus (Blaxton, 1989; Challis & Hunt & Mitchell, 1978, 1982; Hunt & Toth, 1990; Sidhu, 1993; Srinivas & Roediger, 1990). Con- Zechmeister, 1969, 1972). We chose to study this versely, conceptual manipulations, such as levels distinctiveness effect because the reported pattern of processing where participants study words ei- of data on orthographic distinctiveness has im- ther for their semantic or phonemic properties, portant implications for two influential theories of influence indirect tests that rely on meaning, but memory: the distinctiveness hypothesis advanced not perceptually driven indirect tests such as word by Hunt and colleagues (Hunt, 1995; Hunt & fragment completion (e.g., Blaxton, 1989; Ha- McDaniel, 1993; Hunt & Smith, 1996; Smith & mann, 1990; Srinivas & Roediger, 1990). Hunt, 2000) and the transfer appropriate pro- Performance on direct tests also demonstrates cessing framework advanced by Roediger and the importance of the match in processing. For colleagues (Roediger, 1990; Roediger, Weldon, & example, free recall, which relies, for the most Challis, 1989). part, on generative or elaborative processes, is The findings of central interest come from re- influenced by conceptual manipulations, such as search examining the effect of orthographic dis- the levels of processing (Craik & Tulving, 1975) tinctiveness on direct (or explicit) and indirect (or and the generation of an item (Jacoby, 1978; implicit) tests of memory (Hunt & Toth, 1990). Slamecka & Graf, 1978) but not by perceptual This research shows that orthographically distinct manipulations, such as changes in modality words, such as ‘‘subpoena,’’ are remembered bet- (Rajaram & Roediger, 1993). While most direct ter than orthographically common words, such as tests of memory are largely driven by conceptual ‘‘sailboat,’’ using a direct test of free recall (Hunt & processing, some direct tests, such as fragment Toth, 1990). This work also shows that the ad- cued recall, in which the percept is partially vantage of completing fragments (e.g., s_ _l b_a t) available at test, are influenced by both concep- for studied words compared to nonstudied words, tual (Roediger, Weldon, Stadler, & Riegler, 1992) a measure termed ‘‘priming’’ (Graf & Schacter, and perceptual processes (see Blaxton, 1989; 1985; Tulving, Schacter, & Stark, 1982), is greater Challis & Sidhu, 1993). for orthographically distinct words than for or- The reported pattern of the orthographic dis- thographically common words on an indirect test tinctiveness effect across various memory tests of word fragment completion (Hunt & Toth, (Hunt & Toth, 1990) is inconsistent with the 1990). Interestingly, although orthographically transfer appropriate processing framework be- distinct words show an advantage on the indirect cause it shows the effect of an ostensibly percep- test of word fragment completion, they do not tual variable such as orthography on a conceptual show such an advantage in priming on another test but not a perceptual test. For example, or- indirect test of perceptual identification, in which thographic distinctiveness influences free recall, participants are required to identify words that are which is considered to be a conceptually driven flashed briefly on a screen (Hunt & Toth, 1990). test, but not perceptual identification, which is L. Geraci, S. Rajaram / Journal of Memory and Language 47 (2002) 273–291 275 considered to be a perceptual or data-driven test. of items from that category that were presented in However, the word fragment completion data are the study list. In the indirect word association test, consistent with the transfer appropriate process- participants simply wrote words that were asso- ing framework because they do show an effect of ciated with the category label (e.g., furniture), and orthographic distinctiveness using a test that is in the indirect category exemplar test, participants classified as data-driven. listed exemplars in response to the same cue. Re- Interestingly, the data from the indirect word sults demonstrated a distinctiveness effect, i.e., fragment completion test are inconsistent with a better memory for exemplars processed for dif- recent version of Hunt and colleagues’ theory of ference than for similarity, only on the direct test distinctiveness (Hunt, 1995; Hunt & McDaniel, of cued recall and not on the indirect tests of word 1993; Hunt & Smith, 1996; Smith & Hunt, 2000). association and category exemplar production. This theory proposes that the distinctiveness effect These data support Smith and Hunt’s (2000) requires direct reference to the study episode and, hypothesis that the distinctiveness effect cannot be