The Effects of Divided Attention on Encoding and Retrieval Processes: The Resiliency of Retrieval Processes

We have recently cast doubt (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, & Dori, 1998) on the view that encoding and retrieval processes in human memory are similar. Divided attention at encoding was shown to reduce memory performance significantly, whereas divided attention at retrieval affected memory performance only minimally. In this article we examined this asymmetry further by using more difficult retrieval tasks, which require substantial effort. In one experiment, subjects had to encode and retrieve lists of unfamiliar name-nouns combinations attached to people's photographs, and in the other, subjects had to encode words that were either strong or weak associates of the cues presented with them and then to retrieve those words with either intra- or extra-list cues. The results of both experiments showed that unlike division of attention at encoding, which reduces memory performance markedly, division of attention at retrieval has almost no effect on memory performance, but was accompanied by an increase in secondary-task cost. Such findings again illustrated the resiliency of retrieval processes to manipulations involving the withdrawal of attention. We contend that retrieval processes are obligatory or protected, but that they require attentional resources for their execution.

[1]  Moshe Naveh-Benjamin,et al.  Recognition memory of spatial location information: Another failure to support automaticity , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[2]  M. Johnson,et al.  Some problems with the process-dissociation approach to memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  Moshe Naveh-Benjamin,et al.  Coding of temporal order information: an automatic process? , 1990 .

[4]  F. Craik,et al.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  Raymond J. Shaw,et al.  Age differences in predictions and performance on a cued recall task. , 1989, Psychology and aging.

[6]  William A. Johnston,et al.  Speed, accuracy, and ease of recall. , 1972 .

[7]  W. Johnston,et al.  Divided attention: a vehicle for monitoring memory processes. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  R. T. Kellogg,et al.  Conscious attentional demands of encoding and retrieval from long-term memory. , 1982, The American journal of psychology.

[9]  Moshe Naveh-Benjamin,et al.  Effects of Divided Attention on Encoding and Retrieval Processes in Human Memory: Further Support for an Asymmetry , 1998 .

[10]  B. Murdock EFFECTS OF A SUBSIDIARY TASK ON SHORT‐TERM MEMORY , 1965 .

[11]  F. Craik,et al.  Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory: further support for an asymmetry. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  M. Moscovitch Memory and Working-with-Memory: A Component Process Model Based on Modules and Central Systems , 1992, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  L. Squire Memory and Brain , 1987 .

[14]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[15]  J. Engelkamp,et al.  Process Dissociation Procedure: Double Dissociations following Divided Attention and Speeded Responding , 1997 .

[16]  M. Mishkin,et al.  The anatomy of memory. , 1987, Scientific American.

[17]  Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. , 2000 .

[18]  J. Jonides,et al.  On the automaticity of frequency coding: effects of competing task load, encoding strategy, and intention , 1986 .

[19]  Myra A. Fernandes,et al.  Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  Paul A. Kolers,et al.  Remembering operations , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[21]  F. Craik,et al.  The attentional demands of encoding and retrieval in younger and older adults: 1. Evidence from divided attention costs. , 1998, Psychology and aging.

[22]  F. Craik,et al.  On the Transfer of Information from Temporary to Permanent Memory [and Discussion] , 1983 .

[23]  E. Tulving Elements of episodic memory , 1983 .

[24]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. , 1984 .

[25]  D. Griffith,et al.  The attentional demands of mnemonic control processes , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[26]  G. Cohen,et al.  Memory for proper names: age differences in retrieval , 1986 .

[27]  M Naveh-Benjamin,et al.  Coding of spatial location information: an automatic process? , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  M. Naveh-Benjamin,et al.  Effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: assessment of attentional costs and a componential analysis. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  H Pashler,et al.  Attentional limits in memory retrieval. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.