Abstract
Johnson-Laird, Gibbs and de Mowbray (1978) and Ross (1981) have argued that amount of processing, as indexed by the overall number of decisions a subject makes, provides a good predictor of incidental memory performance. Conversely, McClelland, Rawles and Sinclair (1981) have provided evidence that it is normally the number of positive decisions rather than the overall number of decisions per se that determines level of recall. The present study replicated and extended the findings of McClelland and his colleagues. In free recall (Experiment 1 and 3), cued recall (Experiment 3) and recognition in the presence or absence of context cues (Experiments 2 and 3), an account based on number of positive decisions provided by far the better explanation. Experiment 3 also revealed that the experimental manipulations had a somewhat greater effect on recall than recognition. This is explained in terms of Tulving and Pearlstone's (1966) distinction between availability and accessibility. It is suggested that words associated with negative decisions are not only less accessible in memory, there are also fewer of them available for recall and recognition.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
Disclaimer: 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.
