Abstract
We review and meta-analyze how distinctive encoding alters encoding and retrieval processes and, thus, affects correct and false recognition in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm. Reductions in false recognition following distinctive encoding (e.g., generation), relative to a nondistinctive read-only control condition, reflected both impoverished relational encoding and use of a retrieval-based distinctiveness heuristic. Additional analyses evaluated the costs and benefits of distinctive encoding in within-subjects designs relative to between-group designs. Correct recognition was design independent, but in a within design, distinctive encoding was less effective at reducing false recognition for distinctively encoded lists but more effective for nondistinctively encoded lists. Thus, distinctive encoding is not entirely “cost free” in a within design. In addition to delineating the conditions that modulate the effects of distinctive encoding on recognition accuracy, we discuss the utility of using signal detection indices of memory information and memory monitoring at test to separate encoding and retrieval processes.
Highlights
The finding that distinctively encoded information enjoys a memory advantage has a rich history in memory research
Our findings confirm that distinctive encoding can improve correct memory while reducing false memory and reveal that these benefits can come with costs
In the DRM paradigm, we have suggested that more conservative responding is indicative of an increase in test-based strategic memory monitoring, consistent with use of a distinctiveness heuristic (Gunter et al 2007; Huff and Bodner 2013)
Summary
The finding that distinctively encoded information enjoys a memory advantage has a rich history in memory research (for reviews, see Hunt and Worthen 2006; Schmidt 1991). Arndt and Reder (2003) found a selective reduction in the DRM illusion for lists that were studied in distinctive (vs nondistinctive) fonts, consistent with an encoding-based account Another approach to parsing out the contributions of encoding versus retrieval processes is through the use of an inclusion test (Brainerd et al 2003; Gunter et al 2007; Hege and Dodson 2004; Hunt et al 2011). Using the signal detection approach, Huff and Bodner (2013) separated the contributions of encoding and retrieval processes to correct and false recognition in the DRM paradigm, but only across between-group designs Across experiments, they compared the effects of pleasantness ratings, anagram generation, and processing instructions with those of nondistinctive (read-only) control groups.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
