Effect of caption meaning on memory for nonsense figures

Recognition and recall of simple nonsense figures were investigated. Five different relations between captions and figures were tested: no caption, physically descriptive, abstract, meaningful, and humorous. Thirty nonsense figures were presented with captions of a particular relation followed by an additional 30 figures that required the subjects to generate the same type of captions. Following distraction, the subjects attempted to recall and draw all 60 figures. Fifteen of the first thirty figures that had supplied captions were then tested for recognition without their captions. Recall of figures with supplied humorous captions was best and abstract captions resulted in poorest recall. For generated captions, meaningful and no caption conditions were best recalled and descriptive captions were worst. This interaction between source of caption and type of meaning indicates that certain information such as humor can be relatively more helpful if supplied than if generated. Recognition was better for recalled figures but without an interaction with caption meaning or error type. Thus, in the present study, the captions served as retrieval cues without significantly influencing memory for the figure itself.

[1]  W. Marks.  Elaborative processing of pictures in verbal domains , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[2]  J. Bryant,et al.  Uses and Effects of Humor in Educational Ventures , 1983 .

[3]  H. P. Bahrick,et al.  Retention of visual and verbal codes of the same stimuli. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Labeling effects on memory for nonsense pictures , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[5]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Meaningful-interpretation effects on codes of nonsense pictures. , 1978 .

[6]  L. Pring,et al.  Recalling pictures and words: Reversing the generation effect , 1990 .

[7]  P. Derks,et al.  Creativity in humor production: Quantity and quality in divergent thinking , 1988 .

[8]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Measures of Memory , 1988 .

[9]  D Homa,et al.  Long-term memory for pictures under conditions of thematically related foils , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[10]  L. Hasher,et al.  Automatic and effortful processes in memory. , 1979 .

[11]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Picture recognition improves with subsequent verbal information. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  Sabato D. Sagaria,et al.  The Effect of Pictures and Humor on Memory for Verbal Material in Two Extreme Scholastic Aptitude Populations. , 1985 .

[13]  L. Carmichael,et al.  An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. , 1932 .

[14]  Michael A. Wallach,et al.  Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. , 1965 .

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

[16]  Effects of encoding the perceptual features of pictures on memory. , 1991 .

[17]  Cross-modal recognition of pictures and descriptions without test-appropriate encoding , 1986 .

[18]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[19]  G. Bower,et al.  Comprehension and memory for pictures , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[20]  H. B. Ranken.  Language and Thinking: Positive and Negative Effects of Naming , 1963, Science.

[21]  U. Neisser,et al.  Perceptual organization as a determinant of visual recognition memory. , 1974, The American journal of psychology.

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

[23]  N. S. Johnson,et al.  Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. , 1976 .

[24]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words , 1975 .

[25]  Roger T. Davis.  Memory for Form , 1974 .

[26]  Z. Peynircioǧlu.  The generation effect with pictures and nonsense figures , 1989 .