As generations of underlining, note-taking students testify, material emphasized in any fashion becomes more memorable. Within experimental confines this seems demonstrable whether the emphasis stems from differential reinforcement (9 ) , configural isolation ( 11 ) , or personal motivational import ( 10, 13 ) . In a series of studies, Bousfield and his associates have explored one variety of differential reinforcement dependent on intrinsic organizational habits (1, 2, 3 ) . These studies have shown that when all che words of a given list may be subsumed under a few superordinate concepts, when for example the list consists of 10 animals plus 10 names plus 10 professions plus 10 vegetables, presented in randomized order with instructions to recall as many as possible just as they come to mind, two main phenomena occur. First, words embodying the same superordinate tend to be listed successively during recall, to a degree significantly above chance; this means they receive organization not initially present in the randomized stimulus list ( 1 ) . Second, word lists so designed are more memorable than lists equated for ThorndikeLorge frequency count but more heterogeneous with respect to number of built-in superordinates ( 2 ) . Deriving his explanation from Hebb's cognicive theory, Bousfield ( 2 ) suggests' that any perceived word, e. g., cat, may activate super~rdinate l~ related cognitive systems, e. g., those corresponding to 'feline,' 'pet,' 'animal,' but that recurrence of related subordinates, e.g., cat-shortly-followed-by-fox, differentially reinforces the shared superordinate, in this case, animal. The aroused superordinate in turn confers added response-readiness on all subordinate members; not only are related words apt to be evoked one after the other during recall, but the emphasizing action of the facilitated superordinate lends memorability. Up to a limiting point, the more often the superordinate is stimulated by recurring subordinates, the stronger its reciprocal facilitating action. Thus it has been found that the larger the number of cues to the meaning of each item on the list, the better the recall, e.g., word-plus-coloredline-drawing > word-pius-line-drawing > word-alone ( 3 ) . Sakoda ( 15) has demonstrated that the correlation between clustering and recall is very high when individual differences in readiness to make use of
Read full abstract