Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited
Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited
Performance on tests in which there is control over reporting (e.g., cued recall with the option to withhold responses) can be characterized by four parameters: free- and forced-report retrieval (correct responses retrieved from memory when the option to withhold responses is exercised and when it is not, respectively), monitoring (discrimination between correct and incorrect potential responses), and report bias (willingness to report responses). Typically, researchers do not examine all these components in cued-test performance; blanks are sometimes counted the same as errors, meaning that the (free-report) performance index is contaminated with report bias and monitoring ability. In this research, a two-stage testing procedure is described that allows measures of free- and forced-report retrieval, monitoring, and bias to be derived from the original encoding specificity experiments (Thomson & Tulving, 1970). The results show that their cue-reinstatement manipulation affected free-report retrieval, but once report bias and monitoring effects were removed by forcing output, retrieval was unaffected.
67-80
Higham, P.A.
4093b28f-7d58-4d18-89d4-021792e418e7
2002
Higham, P.A.
4093b28f-7d58-4d18-89d4-021792e418e7
Higham, P.A.
(2002)
Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited.
Memory & Cognition, 30 (1), .
Abstract
Performance on tests in which there is control over reporting (e.g., cued recall with the option to withhold responses) can be characterized by four parameters: free- and forced-report retrieval (correct responses retrieved from memory when the option to withhold responses is exercised and when it is not, respectively), monitoring (discrimination between correct and incorrect potential responses), and report bias (willingness to report responses). Typically, researchers do not examine all these components in cued-test performance; blanks are sometimes counted the same as errors, meaning that the (free-report) performance index is contaminated with report bias and monitoring ability. In this research, a two-stage testing procedure is described that allows measures of free- and forced-report retrieval, monitoring, and bias to be derived from the original encoding specificity experiments (Thomson & Tulving, 1970). The results show that their cue-reinstatement manipulation affected free-report retrieval, but once report bias and monitoring effects were removed by forcing output, retrieval was unaffected.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2002
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 18318
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/18318
ISSN: 0090-502X
PURE UUID: b6a6a779-2b8c-4b6c-9839-b687454191b0
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 13 Jan 2006
Last modified: 09 Jan 2022 03:05
Export record
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
