X hits on this document

64 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

5 / 25

374

SYMONS AND JOHNSON

as self information (Aron et al., 1991 ). Thus, to the degree that the target other is intimate, the SRE should less likely be ob- tained (e.g., Bower & Gilligan, 1979; Brown et al., 1986; Kuiper, 1982). Yet, because studies in this subliterature have not always used highly intimate target others (e.g., the experi- menter for the laboratory session), we still expect our meta- analysis to reveal a mnemonic advantage for SR conditions over

SRE should be larger for low-intimacy targets than for high- intimacy targets; and (c) within the SR-semantic class of com- parisons, SREs should be larger when studies used traits rather than nouns.

Self as a Construct That Promotes Organization

OR conditions. When the rated target is highly intimate, how- ever, OR should result in memory of stimulus words nearly equivalent to that of SR.

We should note that many researchers did not distinguish between familiarity and intimacy in their operationalizations of OR tasks. For example, in the literature, it is common to see, for example, Johnny Carson and one's mother described as highly "familiar" stimulus others. However, although both their mothers and Johnny Carson may be rated by research partici- pants as very familiar target others, participants are, of course, much more likely to have an intimate knowledge of their moth- ers. Although this may seem like a minor and admittedly obvious point, we present it because it has contributed to the perception of inconsistency in findings in the SRE literature. Consistent with the elaboration hypothesis, researchers have examined the degree to which representations of intimate others may overlap that of the self (e.g., Aron et al., 1991 ). One's memory structure about one's mother should obviously be much more elaborate, differentiated, and well known than a memory structure about Johnny Carson. Thus, representations about one's mother are theoretically more likely to promote recall equivalent to that evoked by SR. Later, we show that the distinction between familiarity and intimacy, as they are used in the literature, is important: Only intimacy predicts variation in effect sizes in the SRE literature.

Encoding specificity. An important principle of memory is that elaboration at encoding cannot solely account for retrieval. A large body of literature asserts the importance of retrieval conditions as well as encoding conditions. Based on the encod- ing specificity principle (Fisher & Craik, '1977; Tulving, 1979; Tulving & Thompson, 1973), the best retention is obtained when retrieval conditions reinstate conditions that were present at en- coding. Wells et al. (1984) examined the effects of encoding- specific conditions on the SRE and showed evidence that partici- pants spontaneously reinstated SR conditions at retrieval. Nota- bly, even when encoding and retrieval conditions were matched (i.e., OR encoding was followed by an OR cue at retrieval), recognition memory was higher for the SR condition. This find- ing is consistent with DOP research (Fisher & Craik, 1977) that shows differences in recall across processing conditions despite matched encoding and retrieval conditions. These find- ings suggest that, even with matched conditions, encoding condi- tions have an effect. In the same way, SR encoding may promote better recall than comparison processing conditions because it promotes SR retrieval (Wells et al., 1984) and more elaboration of stimulus words.

In summary, the elaboration hypothesis predicts that, across the literature, SR should be superior to both semantic and OR processing. Moreover, if we extend the logic of the elaboration hypothesis, (a) in general, the SRE should be larger for studies that compared SR tasks with tasks that promote less elaboration; (b) within the class of studies that used SR and OR tasks, the

Ironically, a huge literature on the mnemonic effects of orga- nization predated the DOP perspective that elaboration is memo- ry's driving force (see Bousfield & Bousfield, 1966; and Mand- ler, 1967), but it has only more recently been brought to bear on the SRE (Klein & Klhlstrom, 1986). Organization is the process of grouping items together. It (a) is essentially relational processing in which words are grouped based on some set of semantic criteria (Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986); (b) results in attention to similarities between list words (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993) as well as associations between the words and their cate- gory label (Battig & Bellezza, 1979; Klein & Klhlstrom, 1986); and (c) may take different forms (e.g., subjective organization or organizational strategies that are unique to the particular stimulus list or encoding situation; see Battig & Bellezza, 1979). According to Klein and Klhlstrom, organization facilitates recall in two ways. First, it encourages encoding of relationships be- tween list words that share the same category, resulting in the development of multiple retrieval paths. Second, the associations formed between the words and their category label allow the category label to act as a retrieval cue, thus facilitating recall.

Klein and his colleagues rallied evidence to show that organi- zational processing also plays a role in the SRE (Klhlstrom et al., 1988; Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986; Klein & Loftus, 1988; Klein, Loftus, & Schell, 1994). For example, Klein and Kihl- strom showed that organizational properties presumably inher- ent in a typical SR task could account for its mnemonic superior- ity relative to a semantic comparison task. They found that, when an SR task is compared with a semantic-encoding condi- tion designed to promote organization, the SRE disappeared. They concluded that organization was confounded with SR in the typical SRE paradigm.

In-line with this reasoning, if an organizational principle un- derlies the mnemonic superiority of SR encoding, to the degree that a comparison task promotes organization (e.g., a categori- zation task), then the difference in subsequent recall following the two tasks should decrease. However, organization can take several forms (Battig & Bellezza, 1979). For example, it can occur because participants become aware of a category due to its size (Hunt & Seta, 1984), can be subjective, or could be deliberately induced by the experimenter (e.g., through a cate- gory-sorting task). Although it has been demonstrated that a self-descriptivenessjudgment task can elicit organizational pro- cessing (e.g., Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986), no researcher has specifically examined the degree to which specific kinds of organizing strategies or styles of organizational processing natu- rally arise out of an SR task or affect the SRE. On the basis of Klein and his colleagues' findings (e.g., Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986; Klein & Loftus, 1988), however, we can generally predict that, to the degree that SR processing elicits organization, recall should be greater than for a task that does not. Moreover, theoret- ically if both comparison tasks promote organization, to the

Document info
Document views64
Page views64
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 01:03:43 UTC 2016
Pages25
Paragraphs1482
Words20141

Comments