Content deleted Content added
IntoThinAir (talk | contribs) m link Leo Postman using Find link |
m →Advertising: clean up, typo(s) fixed: September 7, 1964 → September 7, 1964, |
||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Memory process-related theory}}
The '''encoding specificity principle''' is the general principle that matching the encoding contexts of information at recall assists in the retrieval of [[Episodic memory|episodic memories]]. It provides a framework for understanding how the conditions present while [[Encoding (memory)|encoding]] information relate to [[memory]] and [[Recollection|recall]] of that information.<
It was introduced by
The context may refer to the context in which the information was encoded, the physical ___location or surroundings, as well as the mental or physical state of the individual at the time of encoding. This principle plays a significant role in both the concept of [[context-dependent memory]] and the concept of [[state-dependent memory]].
Line 8 ⟶ 9:
==Development of the Concept==
[[Hermann Ebbinghaus|Ebbinghaus]], a pioneer of research into memory, noted that associations between items aids recall of information thus the internal context of a list matters. This is because we look for any connection that helps us combine items into meaningful units. This started a lot of research into lists of to-be-remembered (tbr) words, and cues that helped them. In 1968 Tulving and Osler made participants
==Role of Semantics==
[[Semantics]] do not always play a role in encoding specificity; memory, rather, depends upon the context at encoding and retrieval.<ref name="Semantics revisited">{{cite journal|last=Hannon|first=Brenda|author2=Fergus Craik|s2cid=17570987|year=2001|title=Encoding specificity revisited: The role of semantics|journal=Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology|volume=55|issue=3|pages=231–243|doi=10.1037/h0087369|pmid=11605558}}</ref> Early research has shown that semantically related cues should be effective in retrieving a word provided the semantic cue was encoded along with the target word. If the semantically related word is not present at the time of encoding, it will not be efficient at cuing recall for the target word.<ref name="Semantic Interpretation">{{cite journal|last=Reder|first=Lynne|author2=John Anderson |author3=Robert Bjork |title=A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=1974|volume=102|issue=4|pages=648–656|doi=10.1037/h0036115}}</ref>
In a laboratory study, a subject presented with an unrelated word pair is able to recall a target word with much more accuracy when prompted with the unrelated word it was matched with at the time of encoding, than if presented with a semantically related word that was not available during the time of encoding.<ref name="Semantics revisited" /> During a recall task, people benefit equally from a weakly related cue word as from a strongly related cue word, provided the weakly related word was present at encoding.<ref name="Semantic Interpretation" />
Regardless of semantic relatedness of the paired words, participants more effectively recalled target words that had been primed when prompted for recall.<ref name="Tulving">{{cite journal|last=Tulving|first=Endel|author2=Donald Thomson|s2cid=14879511|year=1973|title=Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory|journal=Psychological Review|volume=80|issue=5|pages=352–373|doi=10.1037/h0020071}}</ref> Many of the following experiments employed a method modeled off of Thomson and Tulving's. All, however, had slight variations which allowed the researchers to discover their own individual findings. The following table shows the importance of priming through word pairs to achieve enhanced recall of words encoded together.<ref name="Two-Phase Model">{{cite journal|last=Bahrick|first=Harry|title=Two-phase model for prompted recall|journal=Psychological Review|year=1970|volume=77|issue=3|pages=215–222|doi=10.1037/h0029099}}</ref>
{| border="1"
Line 66 ⟶ 67:
Multiple studies have shown a dependence on context of one's environment as an aid to recall specific items and events.
===
The ___location and environment in which
The type of environment itself did not matter, just that the environment was constant during encoding and recall, as the effect on recall of the environment of recall depends on the environment of original learning.<ref name="underwater 2">{{cite journal|last=Godden|first=Duncan|author2=Alan Baddely|title=When Does Context Influence Recognition Memory?|journal=The British Journal of Psychology|year=1980|volume=71|pages=99–104|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb02735.x}}</ref> Memory tested through recognition, however, was not affected. This phenomenon is explained by what is termed the [[Context-dependent memory#The outshining hypothesis|outshining hypothesis]]: context can be a useful cue for memory but only when it is needed. One will only turn to context as a cue when better cues are unavailable. In recognition tests, cues other than the immediate encoding context and environment are superior, whereas in free-recall tests, the immediate environment serves as the only cue to trigger memory.<ref name="underwater 2" />
====Auditory environment====▼
The level and kind of noise in any given encoding environment will affect the ability to recall the information encoded in a different auditory environment.<ref name="Music auditory">{{cite journal|last=Grant|first=Harry|author2=Lane C. Bredahl |author3=John Clay |author4=Jennifer Ferrie |author5=Jane Groves |author6=Timothy McDorman |author7=Veronica Dark |title=Context-dependent memory for meaningful material: Information for students|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|year=1998|volume=12|issue=6|pages=617–623|doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(1998120)12:6<617::aid-acp542>3.0.co;2-5|citeseerx=10.1.1.497.6500}}</ref> Students receive higher scores on tests when they study for and take examinations in environments that have similar auditory background distractions, thus proving that the context-dependency effect applies to meaningful scenarios in addition to unrelated word lists. While a typical college student's study environment often includes background noise, test environments are typically quieter.<ref name="Music auditory" /> In line with the encoding specificity principle, this mismatch at encoding and retrieval is detrimental to test performance.<ref name=Textbook>{{cite book|last=Robinson-Riegler|first=Bridget|title=Cognitive Psychology: Applying the Science of the mind|year=2008|publisher=Pearson Publishing|___location=Boston, MA|isbn=978-0-205-03364-5|pages=246–248}}</ref> Students who study with background noise recall just as much information as students studying in silence, provided they are tested in the same type of environment as which the information was encoded.<ref name="Music auditory" />▼
====Language and the voluntary retrieval of autobiographical memories====▼
▲The level and kind of noise in any given encoding environment will affect the ability to recall the information encoded in a different auditory environment.<ref name="Music auditory">{{cite journal|last=Grant|first=Harry|author2=Lane C. Bredahl |author3=John Clay |author4=Jennifer Ferrie |author5=Jane Groves |author6=Timothy McDorman |author7=Veronica Dark |title=Context-dependent memory for meaningful material: Information for students|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|year=1998|volume=12|issue=6|pages=617–623|doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(1998120)12:6<617::aid-acp542>3.0.co;2-5|citeseerx=10.1.1.497.6500}}</ref>
[[Autobiographical memory|Autobiographical memories]] are more accessible when the language at encoding and recall match.<ref name="Autobiographical memory">{{cite journal|last=Marian|first=Viorica|author2=Ulric Neisser|title=Language Dependent recall of autobiographical memories|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=2000|volume=129|issue=3|pages=361–368|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.361 }}</ref> Researchers conducted interviews with Russian and English speaking bilingual students in both languages and asked participants to retrieve the first memory that comes to mind when hearing a generic word in either language. They found that when presented with Russian-language cues, participants recalled memories that occurred in a Russian-speaking environment and when presented with English-language cues, they easily recalled memories from English-speaking contexts.<ref name="Autobiographical memory" /> This is first because the cue words may have been spoken during the original event that the participant was remembering; hearing the word at encoding and again at retrieval may have been a sufficient cue to bring the memory to mind. Second, this phenomenon may be due to the general language-created ambiance of the situation in which participants were tested rather than the specific associations to individual cue words.<ref name="Autobiographical memory" />▼
▲[[Autobiographical memory|Autobiographical memories]] are more accessible when the language at encoding and recall match.<ref name="Autobiographical memory">{{cite journal|last=Marian|first=Viorica|author2=Ulric Neisser|s2cid=4107490|title=Language Dependent recall of autobiographical memories|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=2000|volume=129|issue=3|pages=361–368|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.361 |pmid=11006905}}</ref> Researchers conducted interviews with Russian and English speaking bilingual students in both languages and asked participants to retrieve the first memory that comes to mind when hearing a generic word in either language. They found that when presented with Russian-language cues, participants recalled memories that occurred in a Russian-speaking environment and when presented with English-language cues, they easily recalled memories from English-speaking contexts.<ref name="Autobiographical memory" /> This is first because the cue words may have been spoken during the original event that the participant was remembering; hearing the word at encoding and again at retrieval may have been a sufficient cue to bring the memory to mind. Second, this phenomenon may be due to the general language-created ambiance of the situation in which participants were tested rather than the specific associations to individual cue words.<ref name="Autobiographical memory" />
== Specific Examples ==
===
Patients with [[Alzheimer's disease]] (AD) are unable to effectively process the semantic relationship between two words at encoding to assist in the retrieval process.<ref name="Alzheimer's granholm">{{cite journal|last=Granholm|first=Eric|author2=Nelson Butters|title=Associative encoding and retrieval in Alzheimer's and Huntington's Disease|journal=Brain and Cognition|year=1988|volume=7|issue=3|pages=335–347|doi=10.1016/0278-2626(88)90007-3|pmid=2969744|s2cid=20415261}}</ref> The general population benefits equally from a weakly related cue word as from a strongly related cue word during a recall task, provided the weakly related word was present at encoding. Patients with AD, however, were unable to benefit from the weakly related cue even if it was present at both encoding and retrieval.<ref name="Alzheimer's granholm" /> Instead of relying upon semantic encoding, those with AD presented their most dominant associations to the cue words during recall test. This explains why all AD patients performed well when two strong words were matched together but very poorly when a strong and weak pairs were presented during recall
Information encoded and stored while intoxicated, see [[state-dependent memory]], is retrieved more effectively when an individual is intoxicated as compared to being sober. State-dependent memory is one example of encoding specificity. If an individual encodes information while intoxicated he or she, ideally, should match that state when attempting to recall the encoded information. This type of state-dependent effect is strongest with free recall rather than when strong retrieval cues are present.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Eich|first=James Eric|date=March 1980|title=The cue-dependent nature of state-dependent retrieval|journal=Memory & Cognition|volume=8|issue=2|pages=157–173|doi=10.3758/bf03213419|pmid=7382817|issn=0090-502X|doi-access=free}}</ref>
This finding is a variation of the context-dependency effect of the encoding specificity principle and is much more apparent with low-imagery words than high-imagery words. Both high and low imagery words, however, are less likely to be recalled while intoxicated due to the inherent nature of intoxication.<ref name="alcohol">{{cite journal|last=Weingartner|first=Herbert|author2=Wolansa Adefras|author3=James E. Eich|author4=Dennis L. Murphy|year=1976|title=Encoding-imagery specificity in alcohol state-dependent learning|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory|volume=2|issue=1|pages=83–87|doi=10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.83|pmid=1249533}}</ref> This principle demonstrates the significance of encoding specificity; the contextual state of intoxication provides retrieval cues and information that are superior to and outweigh the negative effects on memory from a depressant substance that activates GABA and inhibits neurotransmission. In this regard, this encoding specific context trumps the importance of such neural brain activity.
▲====Alcohol====
===
The emotional nature of [[advertisements]] affects the rate of recall for the advertised product.<ref name="Advertising">{{cite journal|last=Friestad|first=Marian|author2=Esther Thorson|title=Remembering ads: the effects of encoding strategies, retrieval cues and emotional response|journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology|year=1993|volume=2|issue=1|pages=1–23|doi=10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80072-1}}</ref> When the nature of the advertisement was emotional, an encoding focus on [[episodic memory]] (trying to carefully remember the visual content of the commercial) led to a much higher rate of recall for emotional advertisements. Conversely, al peptions,{{typo help inline|date=April 2020}} preferences of given object advertised) led to a much higher recall of specific advertisements.<ref name="Advertising" /> Empirical evidence regarding the nature of emotional advertising provides the advertising industry with data as to how to contour their ads to maximize recall of advertisements. [[Political advertising]] displays this emotional nature of content. A political advertisement<ref name="Political ad">{{cite web|author=Museum of the Moving Image |title=Daisy |url=http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy |publisher=The Living Room Candidate |accessdate=18 November 2011 |
The encoding specificity principle has an implication for studying; as the recall of information is aided by the context of encoding the information, suggesting one should study in a similar context to the exam.
==Criticism==
James S. Nairne of Purdue University is the primary opponent of Thomson and Tulving's encoding specificity principle.<ref name=Textbook /> He argues that the encoding-retrieval match is correlational rather than causal and states that many cognitive psychologists consider the principle to be "sacrosanct".<ref name=nairne>{{cite journal|last=Nairne|first=James S.|title=The myth of the encoding-retrieval match|journal=Memory|year=2002|volume=10|issue=5/6|pages=389–395|doi=10.1080/09658210244000216|pmid=12396651|citeseerx=10.1.1.377.6640|s2cid=8085159}}</ref> Nairne suggests that what determines successful memory is cue distinctiveness. He says that good memory may be produced even if there is almost no encoding-retrieval overlap, provided the minimal overlap is highly distinctive.<ref name=nairne /> He characterizes memory as an "active process of discrimination"<ref name=nairne /> and proposes that we use cues to choose between several retrieval candidates. Increasing the encoding-retrieval match improves memory performance, he believes, but only because it increases the probability that distinctive features will come into play.<ref name=nairne />
Phillip
In 1975 [[Leo Postman]] conducted experiments on the encoding specificity principle to check the generalisability of the concept. The first experiment focused on the normative strength go the cues presented on the encoding and recall of words and the second on the presence of weak cues in seconding and recall. The results of the experiments failed to support the encoding specificity principle as strong extra-list cues facilitated the recall of tbr words in the presence of weak encoded cues and recall of the original weak encoded cues failed to be recognised in the context of new strong cues.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Postman|first=Leo|date=November 1975|title=Tests of the generality of the principle of encoding specificity
==References==
{{
[[Category:Cognitive psychology]]
| |||