Recognition of script-typical versus script-atypical information: Effects of cognitive elaboration

Memory for script-atypical information has been shown to be superior to memory for script-typical information. Two explanations of this typicality effect are evaluated: (1) the attention-elaboration hypothesis (AEH) and (2) the script-copy-plus-tag hypothesis (SCTH). The AEH claims that atypical information is recognized better because it attracts more attention and cognitive elaboration. According to the SCTH, memory representations of script-based texts are established automatically and constitute a copy of the script plus tags for atypical events that facilitate later recognition. We investigated recognition memory and memory for the presentation form of typical and atypical items originally shown with versus without missing letters. Experiment 1 showed that presenting items in fragmentary form tends to improve recognition memory mostly for highly typical items. Experiment 2 revealed that the size of this missing-letters effect is affected by the presentation form of items preceding the target items during acquisition. For fragmented items preceded by other fragmented items, the typicality effect virtually disappeared. Memory for the presentation form of items was generally moderate. These results are readily explained within the AEH framework and pose some problems for the SCTH.

[1]  Francis T. Durso,et al.  Effect of schema-incongruent information on memory for stereotypical attributes. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  Timothy R. C. Read,et al.  Goodness-Of-Fit Statistics for Discrete Multivariate Data , 1988 .

[3]  John B. Black,et al.  Scripts in memory for text , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  F. Schmalhofer,et al.  Three components of understanding a programmer's manual: Verbatim, propositional and situational representations , 1986 .

[5]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing , 1990 .

[6]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory , 1982 .

[7]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[8]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[9]  R. Kinchla.  Comments on Batchelder and Riefer's multinomial model for source monitoring. , 1994, Psychological review.

[10]  Peter Graf,et al.  The memorial consequences of generation and transformation , 1982 .

[11]  W. Kintsch.  Learning, memory, and conceptual processes , 1970 .

[12]  A. Friedman.  Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Richard C. Sherman,et al.  Memory for persuasive messages: A test of a schema-copy-plus-tag model. , 1984 .

[14]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  Long‐term prose retention: Is an organizational schema sufficient? , 1987 .

[15]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities: Tests of a script pointer + tag hypothesis , 1979 .

[16]  D. Davidson,et al.  Recognition and Recall of Irrelevant and Interruptive Atypical Actions in Script-Based Stories , 1994 .

[17]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[18]  W. Batchelder,et al.  The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm , 1994 .

[19]  Kathy Pezdek,et al.  Memory for Real-World Scenes: The Role of Consistency With Schema Expectation , 1989 .

[20]  William K. Estes,et al.  Probability Learning11Preparation of this review was supported in part by Contract Nonr 908(16) between the Office of Naval Research and Indiana University. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[21]  J. Mandler.  Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory , 1984 .

[22]  F. Strack,et al.  Memory for Nonoccurrences: Metacognitive and Presuppositional Strategies , 1994 .

[23]  C. Stangor,et al.  Effects of multiple task demands upon memory for information about social groups , 1991 .

[24]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. , 1990 .

[25]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. , 1996 .

[26]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[27]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  Encoding difficulty and memory: toward a unifying theory , 1986 .

[28]  S. Penrod,et al.  Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. , 1986 .

[29]  U. Bayen,et al.  An evaluation of empirical measures of source identification , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[30]  L. Bäckman,et al.  Aging and memory for expected and unexpected objects in real-world settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[32]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis ☆ , 1990 .

[33]  C. Stangor,et al.  The ambiguity of recognition memory tests of schema theories , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  T. Blaxton.  Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. , 1989 .

[35]  Frank R. Yekovich,et al.  Retrieval of scripted concepts , 1986 .

[36]  Gordon H. Bower,et al.  The representational and processing characteristics of scripts , 1981 .

[37]  Mari Riess Jones,et al.  From probability learning to sequential processing: A critical review. , 1971 .

[38]  S Hollander,et al.  Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[39]  C. Stangor,et al.  Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. , 1992 .

[40]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Is memory schematic , 1983 .

[41]  C. Macrae,et al.  PROCESSING LOAD AND MEMORY FOR STEREOTYPE-BASED INFORMATION , 1993 .

[42]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Response strategies in source monitoring , 1994 .

[43]  D. Davidson,et al.  Children′s Recall and Recognition Memory for Typical and Atypical Actions in Script-Based Stories , 1993 .

[44]  Stanley B. Woll,et al.  Memory discrimination for information typical or atypical of person schemata. , 1982 .

[45]  Stephen R. Schmidt,et al.  Evaluating the Role of Distinctiveness in the Generation Effect , 1992 .

[46]  M. H. Hodge,et al.  Processes of scene recognition memory in young children and adults , 1993 .

[47]  James R. Riha,et al.  Script processing in a natural situation , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[48]  A. Graesser,et al.  Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[49]  Script Development and Memory Organization in Preschool and Elementary School Children. , 1986 .

[50]  H. Roediger,et al.  Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account , 1989 .

[51]  Daniel J. Burns.  The generation effect: a test between single- and multifactor theories. , 1990 .

[52]  W. Mischel,et al.  Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition memory. , 1977 .

[53]  W. Brewer,et al.  Role of schemata in memory for places , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[54]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Memory for prose: The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing. , 1984 .

[55]  W. Brewer,et al.  The nature and functions of schemas. , 1984 .

[56]  Xiangen Hu,et al.  Measuring memory factors in source monitoring: Reply to Kinchla. , 1994 .

[57]  James M. Hunt,et al.  Memory structure in the processing of advertising messages: how is unusual information represented? , 1992, The Journal of psychology.

[58]  H Lachnit,et al.  Mobilization of Cognitive Resources and the Generation Effect , 1992, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[59]  R. Markham,et al.  The effect of typicality and retention interval on discriminative memory for instruments , 1994 .

[60]  William H. Batchelder,et al.  Analysis of a Model for Source Monitoring , 1994 .

[61]  M. McDaniel,et al.  The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[62]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  SOME PRINCIPLES OF MEMORY SCHEMATA , 1975 .

[63]  R. Maki.  Memory for script actions: Effects of relevance and detail expectancy , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[64]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  GPOWER: A general power analysis program , 1996 .

[65]  Judith Hudson.  Children's memory for atypical actions in script-based stories: Evidence for a disruption effect , 1988 .

[66]  T. Trabasso,et al.  Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. , 1994 .

[67]  A. Graesser,et al.  Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities. , 1980 .

[68]  Claudia E. Cohen,et al.  Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effect of prior knowledge. , 1981 .

[69]  A. Dijksterhuis,et al.  Memory for stereotype‐consistent and stereotype‐inconsistent information as a function of processing pace , 1995 .