Encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory
In a recent article, P.A. Higham (2002) [Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited. Memory & Cognition, 30, 67-80] proposed a new way to analyze cued recall performance in terms of three separable aspects of memory (retrieval, monitoring, and report bias) by comparing performance under both free-report and forced-report instructions. He used this method to derive estimates of these aspects of memory in an encoding specificity experiment similar to that reported by D.M. Thomson and E. Tulving (1970) [Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255-262]. Under forced-report instructions, the encoding specificity manipulation did not affect performance. Higham concluded that the manipulation affected monitoring and report bias, but not retrieval. I argue that this interpretation of the results is problematic because the Thomson and Tulving paradigm is confounded, and show in three experiments using a more appropriate design that encoding specificity manipulations do affect performance in forced-report cued recall. Because in Higham's framework forced-report performance provides a measure of retrieval that is uncontaminated by monitoring and report bias it is concluded that encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory.
|Keywords||Cued recall, Encoding specificity, Retrieval processes|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.12.001, hdl.handle.net/1765/69831|
Zeelenberg, R. (2005). Encoding specificity manipulations do affect retrieval from memory. Acta Psychologica, 119(1), 107–121. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.12.001