Encoding specificity principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:35, 18 October 2011

Latest revision as of 01:23, 19 February 2024

(208 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Memory process-related theory}}

'''The encoding specificity principle''' is used to explain variability in memory retention; it is the concept that memory is improved when information available at encoding is also available at retrieval. According to Melton3, the elaborate process of memory may be broken down into three stages: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encoding_(memory) encoding], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_(memory) storage], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_(memory) retrieval]. Encoding refers to the process in which information is studied and taken in. A deep semantic processing of information leads to enhanced encoding that is most effective for long-term storage.1 Storage involves the retention of information over time and the formation of a memory representation, also known as a memory trace. However, memory critically depends upon retrieval, which refers to one’s ability to extract information from memory once it has been successfully encoded and stored.

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.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tulving|first=Endel|author2=Donald Thomson|s2cid=14879511|title=Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory|journal=Psychological Review|year=1973|volume=80|issue=5|pages=352–373|doi=10.1037/h0020071}} {{verify source |date=September 2019 |reason=This ref was deleted Special:Diff/889862721 by a bug in VisualEditor and later restored by a bot from the original cite located at Special:Permalink/884039838 cite #1 - verify the cite is accurate and delete this template. [[User:GreenC bot/Job 18]]}}</ref>

It was introduced by Thomson and [[Endel Tulving|Tulving]] who suggested that contextual information is encoded with memories which affect the retrieval process. When a person uses information stored in their memory it is necessary that the information is accessible. The accessibility is governed by retrieval cues, these cues are dependent on the encoding pattern; the specific encoding pattern may vary from instance to instance, even if nominally the item is the same, as encoding depends on the context. This conclusion was drawn from a recognition-memory task.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Tulving|first1=Endel|last2=Thomson|first2=Donald M.|date=1971|title=Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of associative context.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|volume=87|issue=1|pages=116–124|doi=10.1037/h0030186|issn=0022-1015}}</ref> A series of psychological experiments were undertaken in the 1970s which continued this work and further showed that context affects our ability to recall information.

The success of retrieval depends heavily upon what types of retrieval cues are present. Donald M. Thomson and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endel_Tulving Endel Tulving] first proposed the idea that retrieval will be most successful if information available at encoding is also present at retrieval, regardless of how strongly the cues are related to the to-be-remembered words. They theorized that “the memory trace of an event and hence the properties of effective retrieval cue are determined by the specific encoding operations performed by the system on the input stimuli.”2 This hypothesis for understanding how contextual information affects the retrieval of an episodic memory has been proven in a plethora of studies and is now known as the encoding specificity principle.

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]].

==Basic Methods==

==Specific Results==

===Role of Semantics in Encoding Specificity===

===Encoding Specificity and the Immediate Environment===

====Physical Environment====

Several experiments have revealed context-dependency effects for the encoding specificity principle. D.R. Godden and A.D. Baddeley (1975) wished to research if the physical environment in which an event occurs is part of the memory representation for that event. They hypothesize that a change in environments between encoding and retrieval would be detrimental to memory due to an encoding-retrieval mismatch. Eighteen subjects participated in their study – 13 male and five female members of a university diving club. Five lists of words were recorded on tape; each comprised of 36 unrelated words chosen at random. Divers encoded the words either underwater or on a beach. Later, recall was tested in the environment of original encoding or the alternative environment. The researchers’ results supported the encoding specificity principle: what was learned on the beach was better recalled on the beach, and vice versa.

Examples of the use of the encoding specificity principle include; studying in the same room as an exam is taken and the recall of information when intoxicated being easier when intoxicated again. 

This context-dependency effect, however, was only observed when employing free-recall methods. The effect was not seen when Godden and Baddeley tested memory with recognition in their 1980 study. This is explained by what is termed the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

==Development of the Concept==

====Auditory Environment====

[[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 memorise a list of 24 tbr words in the absence or presence of cue words. The cue words facilitated recall when present in the input and output of memorising and recalling the words. They concluded that specific retrieval cues can aid recall if the information of their relation to the tbr words is stored at the same time as the words on the list.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Tulving|first1=Endel|last2=Osler|first2=Shirley|date=1968|title=Effectiveness of retrieval cues in memory for words.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|volume=77|issue=4|pages=593–601|doi=10.1037/h0026069|pmid=5672271|issn=0022-1015}}</ref> Tulving and Thomson studied the effect of the change in context of the tbr by adding, deleting and replacing context words. This resulted in a reduction in the level of recognition performance when the context changed, even though the available information remained context. This led to the encoding specificity principle.<ref name=":0" />

Grant, Bredahl, Clay, Ferrie, Groves, McDorman, and Dark (1988) suggest that the effects of context-dependency also apply to meaningful text material rather than simply lists of unrelated words. They hypothesize that student’s study habits may be harming their exam performance: a typical college student’s study environment often includes background noise while test environments are typically quieter. This mismatch at encoding and retrieval may be detrimental to test performance. To test their predictions, Grant et. al. recruited 39 participants ranging from 17 to 56 years in age. There were 17 females and 23 males. Each participant was to study a basic article on psychoimmunology while wearing headphones. Half the participants would be listening to nothing, while the other half would hear a general conversational hum recorded in a school cafeteria. 16 multiple-choice questions and ten short answer questions were generated to test the material. The short answer test was administered first to ensure that recall from the article rather than recall from the multiple-choice test was being tested. The researchers found that there were context-dependency effects for the newly learned meaningful material independent of test type. In addition, participants who studied with background noise recalled just as much information as students studying in silence. However, whether or not participants studied in the presence of music or not, they always performed better on the test when they were in the same environment for both encoding and retrieval.

==Role of Semantics==

===Encoding Specificity and the Voluntary Retrieval of Autobiographical Memory===

[[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 line with the encoding specificity principle, Marian and Neisser (2000) hypothesized that memories are more accessible when the language at retrieval, like other forms of context, matches the language at encoding. They explore this theory by utilizing 20 Russian-English bilingual students at Cornell University – 9 women and 11 men. Sixteen Russian-English cue word pairs were prepared, such that each member of the pairs was a direct translation of the other. Previous research showed that all words were effective prompts for autobiographical memory (''summer, neighbors, birthday,'' etc). Two word sets were used; half the participants received Set 1 in Russian and Set 2 in English, and half the participants received Set 1 in English and Set 2 in Russian. Participants were individually interviewed twice, once in each language in order to create a specific cultural ambiance. They were told to tell brief stories of specific life events and were prompted with words from the word sets to facilitate the process. The time between the onset of the prompt word and the beginning of the narrative response was recorded.

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" />

Marian and Neisser found that participants accessed more Russian memories when interviewed in Russian and more English memories when interviewed in English. They concluded, therefore, that the language used at the time of retrieval and the linguistic encoding-retrieval match influences which memories the bilingual participants will access. The researchers gave two possible reasons for this finding. First, the set 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, their finding may be due to the general language-created ambiance of the room rather than the specific associations to individual cue words. Therefore, memories are more accessible when the language of encoding and recall are similar rather than different; this is not only a result of associations to specific word prompts but also the overall linguistic ambiance and recall. Thus Marian and Neisser found results supporting Thomson and Tulving’s encoding specificity principle: memory recall is superior when two contexts are the same rather than different.

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>

===Encoding Specificity and Drugs===

Weingartner et. al. (1976) explore the topic of encoding specificity in alcohol state-dependent learning. 11 female volunteers participated in their study. They ranged from 21 to 35 years old, were between 120 and 125 pounds, and were all occasional social drinkers. 80 frequently occurring English words were randomly chosen to construct four word-recall lists. Half the words in each list were low imagery nouns; the other half were high imagery nouns. Subjects, all of whom were experiencing a moderate to intense level of intoxication, were required to listen to a word list and immediately write down all the words they could remember. Four hours later, they were asked to freely recall the words. All subjects performed the experiment under four separate conditions: S-S (learning and immediate recall while sober, and sober recall four hours later), S-I (learning and immediate recall while sober and later recall while intoxicated), I-S (learning and immediate recall while intoxicated and later recall while sober), and I-I (learning and immediate recall while intoxicated and later recall while intoxicated).

{| border="1"

Weingartner et. al. found that both high and low imagery words were less likely to be recalled if they were stored while the participant was intoxicated rather than sober. However, information encoded and stored while intoxicated was retrieved more effectively when later recall tests were performed while intoxicated as compared recall while sober. This finding was much more apparent with low-imagery words than high-imagery words. This experiment supports the context-dependency effect of the encoding specificity principle referred to earlier.

|+ Paired-associate list and four types of prompters

! Stimulus

! Response

! 1 (.01-.08)

! 2 (.09-.21)

! 3 (.23-.36)

! 4 (.38-.59)

|-

| TIME

| blue

| velvet (.03)

| grey (.1)

| green (.28)

| azure (.58)

|-

| SHOE

| book

| print (.02)

| comic (.15)

| read (.35)

| chapter (.59)

|-

| TOP

| chair

| leg (.02)

| cushion (.09)

| upholstery (.36)

| furniture (.48)

|-

| WENT

| telephone

| pole (.04)

| extension (.17)

| communication (.33)

| dial (.59)

|-

| TILE

| girl

| child (.03)

| cute (.18)

| feminine (.26)

| coed (.54)

|}

Modeled after Table 1 Bahrick<ref name="Two-Phase Model" /> (1970)

===Encoding Specificity and the Diagnosis of Disease=Contexts==

Multiple studies have shown a dependence on context of one's environment as an aid to recall specific items and events.

Many studies that have employed the encoding-specificity paradigm have also shown that patients with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease Alzheimer's disease] (AD) are unable to effectively process the semantic relationship between two words at encoding to assist in the retrieval process. For example, in their 1988 study, Granholm and Butters generated a list of 60 words divided into groups of three. Each triad consisted of a to-be-remembered word, a strong associate, and a weak associate. Five experimental conditions were designed: O-O, S-S, W-W, W-S, and S-W. In the S-S condition, each to-be-remembered word was accompanied by a strong word at presentation and a strong word at retrieval. In the S-W condition, a strong associate at presentation and a weak associate at retrieval accompanied each to-be-remembered word, etc. (alzheimers granholm and butters article)

=== Physical environment ===

The researchers found, in congruence with the encoding specificity principle, that control subjects benefitted as much from a weakly related cue word as 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. (Salmon) 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. (granholm butters) Deficits in episodic memory are now widely accepted as a characteristic symptom of Alzheimer’s disease. (diagnosis of early AD article)

The ___location and environment in which one learns something readily affects how freely it is recalled.<ref name="underwater study">{{cite journal|last=Godden|first=D.R.|author2=A.D. Baddely|title=Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments: On Land and Underwater|journal=The British Journal of Psychology|year=1975|volume=66|issue=3|pages=325–331|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x}}</ref> In an experiment by Godden and Baddeley in 1975, researchers took two groups of individuals and asked them to study and remember a list of given words.<ref name="underwater study" /> One group was given a list of words to study while underwater in scuba gear, the other was given the same list on dry land. When asked to recall the information the participants remembered the list of words better when tested in the environment where the list was studied. This experiment illustrates how recreating the physical environment of encoding can aid in the retrieval process.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Cognitive psychology : connecting mind, research and everyday experience|last=Goldstein, E. Bruce, 1941-|date=2015|publisher=Cengage learning|isbn=978-1-285-76388-0|edition=4th|___location=New york|oclc=885178247}}</ref>

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" />

===Encoding Specificity and Advertising===

===Encoding Specificity and Social Cognition===

===Encoding Specificity and Deja Vu===

==Criticism==

James S. Nairne of Purdue University is the primary opponent of Thomson and Tulving’s encoding specificity principle. He argues that the encoding-retrieval match is correlational rather than causal and states that many cognitive psychologists consider the principle to be “sacrosanct” (from article). 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. (book) He characterizes memory as an “active process of discrimination” 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.

=== 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> Grant, et al. (1998) performed a study to test how the auditory environment during encoding and the auditory environment during testing effected recall and recognition during a test. In the study 39 participants were asked to read through an article one time, knowing that they would take a short test on the material. Each of the participants wore headphones while reading but some of the participants heard moderately loud background noise and others heard nothing. They found that regardless of the type of test, it is more beneficial to study and test in the same auditory environment.<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>

'''Language and the voluntary retrieval of autobiographical memories'''

[[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 ==

=== Diagnosis of disease ===

{{unreferenced|date=April 2010}}

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. Deficits in episodic memory are now widely accepted as a characteristic symptom of Alzheimer's disease.<ref name="Alzheimers RI-48">{{cite journal|author=Adam, S.|author2=M. Van der Linden|author3=A. Ivanoiu|author4=A.-C. Juillerat|author5=S. Bechet|author6=E. Salmon|year=2007|title=Optimization of encoding specificity for the diagnosis of early AD: The RI-48 task|journal=Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology|volume=29|issue=5|pages=477–487|doi=10.1080/13803390600775339|pmid=17564913|hdl=2268/28214|s2cid=31325865|url=http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/28214|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

The '''encoding specificity principle''' is a theory about human memory in [[cognitive psychology]]. The theory states that retrieval cues will be most effective if they contain features that overlap with the to-be-remembered memory trace, which in turn has features that are primarily determined by the specific conditions of its initial encoding. The concept was developed by the memory researcher [[Endel Tulving]].

=== Alcohol ===

Tulving's theory of "encoding specificity" emphasizes the importance of retrieval cues in accessing episodic memories. The theory states that effective retrieval cues must overlap with the to-be-retrieved memor y trace. Because the contents of the memory trace are primarily established during the initial encoding of the experience, retrieval cues will be maximally effective if they are similar to this encoded information. Tulving has dubbed the process through which a retrieval cue activates a stored memory "synergistic ecphory."

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.

Initial evidence for the encoding specificity principle came from cued recall experiments using word lists. The principle also is supported by many related experimental phenomena (e.g., the recognition failure of recallable words, state-dependent learning, transfer-appropriate processing). More recently, Tulving has argued that the appropriate retrieval cues are necessary but not sufficient to retrieve episodic memories. One also must be in a "retrieval mode" or a remembering state of mind. Empirical evidence for this theory is not as strong as that for the encoding specificity.

=== Advertising ===

One implication of the encoding specificity principle is that forgetting may be caused by the lack of appropriate retrieval cues, as opposed to decay of a memory trace over time or interference from other memories. Another implication is that there is more information stored in memory relative to what can be retrieved at any given point (i.e., availability vs. accessibility).

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 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426231953/http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy |archivedate=26 April 2014 }}</ref> from Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign is inherently emotional in nature and therefore very easily remembered. If this advertisement re viewed and encoded in an episodic mode, due to its emotional nature, it would be easily recalled because of the mode of memory during the encoding process. This advertisement is a lasting example of emotional advertisements being easily recalled: it aired only once on September 7, 1964, yet is one of the most remembered and famous campaign advertisements to date.

=== Studying ===

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. The way an individual studies should match the way he or she is tested. If one is tested on application of principles to new examples, then one should practice by applying principles during the study session. When students know the requirements for a test or the performance task they can better encode the information while studying and can perform at a higher level when tested.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Studying. Technical Report No. 155.|last=Anderson, Thomas H.|oclc=967611520}}</ref> Studying information in a manner that is closest to the method of assessment is the optimal method of studying due to it aiding recall of the information in a similar context to that of the assessment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mathews|first=C. O.|date=1938|title=Comparison of methods of study for immediate and delayed recall.|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=29|issue=2|pages=101–106|doi=10.1037/h0055182|issn=0022-0663}}</ref>

==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 Higham has also criticised the design and interpretation of Thomson and Tulving's original experiments which used strong and weak cues to generate the encoding specificity principle. He states that the use of forced-report retrieval may have resulted in participants responding to the cues positively, not due to them being encoded at the time of learning but due to pre-experimentally derived associations. Suggesting that the word on the list 'came to mind' at the time of the experiment and that anyone could have given the positive answer. This is seen as even more likely with strong cues. This is known as the 'lucky guessing' criticism.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Higham|first=Philip A.|date=January 2002|title=Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited|journal=Memory & Cognition|volume=30|issue=1|pages=67–80|doi=10.3758/bf03195266|pmid=11958356|issn=0090-502X|doi-access=free}}</ref>

{{cognitive-psych-stub}}

<ref>{{cite journal|last=Higham|first=Philip|title=Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tuvling (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited|journal=Memory & cognition|year=2002|volume=30|issue=1|pages=67}}</ref>article 1

article 2<ref>{{cite journal|last=Martin|first=Edwin|title=Generation-recognition theory and the encoding specificity principle|journal=Psychological Review|year=1975|month=March|volume=82|issue=2|pages=150-153}}</ref>

article 3<ref>{{cite journal|last=Zeelenberg|first=Rene|title=Encoding specificity manipulations do not affect retrieval from memory|journal=Acta Psychologia|year=2005|month=May|volume=119|issue=1|pages=107-121}}</ref>

article4<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bartling|first=Carl|coauthors=Charles Thompson|title=Encoding specificity: Retrieval asymmetry in the recognition failure paradigm|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=1977|month=November|volume=3|issue=6|pages=690-700}}</ref>

article5<ref>{{cite journal|last=Humphreys|first=Michael|coauthors=Richard Galbraith|title=Forward and backward associations in cued recall: Predictions from the encoding specificity principle|journal=Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory|year=1975|month=November|volume=1|issue=6|pages=702-710}}</ref>

article6<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fischer|first=Hakan|coauthors=Lars Nyberg; Lars Backman|title=Age-related differences in brain regions supporting successful encoding of emotional faces|journal=Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior|year=2010|month=April|volume=46|issue=4|pages=490-497}}</ref>

article7<ref>{{cite journal|last=Buschke|first=Herman|coauthors=Martin Sliwinski; Gail Kuslansky; Richard Lipton|title=Diagnosis of early dementia by the double memory test: Encoding specificity improves diagnostic sensitivity and specificity|journal=Neurology|year=1997|month=April|volume=48|issue=4|pages=989-997}}</ref>

article8<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hannon|first=Brenda|title=Encoding specificity revisited: The role of semantics|journal=Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=2001|month=September|volume=55|issue=3|pages=231-243}}</ref>

article9<ref>{{cite journal|last=Friestad|first=Marian|coauthors=Esther Thorson|title=Remembering ads: The effects of encoding strategies, retrieval cues, and emotional response|journal=The Journal of Consumer Psychology|year=1993|volume=2|issue=1|pages=1-23}}</ref>

article10<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mitchell|first=Jason|coauthors=Neil Macrae, Mahzarin Banaji|title=Encoding-Specific Effects of Social Cognition on the Neural Correlates of Subsequent Memory|journal=Journal of Neuroscience|year=2004|month=May|volume=24|issue=21|pages=4912-4917}}</ref>

article11<ref>{{cite journal|last=Newman|first=Slater|title=Some tests of the encoding specificity and semantic integration hypotheses|journal=The American Journal of Psychology|year=1982|volume=95|issue=1|pages=103-123}}</ref>

article12<ref>{{cite journal|last=Godden|first=D.R.|coauthors=A.D. Baddeley|title=Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater|journal=British Jounal of Psychology|year=1975|volume=66|issue=3|pages=325-331}}</ref>

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|journal=Memory & Cognition|volume=3|issue=6|pages=663–672|doi=10.3758/bf03198232|pmid=24203908|issn=0090-502X|doi-access=free}}</ref>

article13<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wohl|first=Marianne|coauthors=Chizuko Izawa|title=Congruency, scoring method, and encoding specificity in cued recall|journal=Journal of General Psychology|year=1980|month=January|volume=102|issue=1|pages=13-26}}</ref>

==References==

article14<ref>{{cite journal|last=Buschke|first=Herman|coauthors=Martin Sliwinski; Dermot Luddy|title=Cognitive theory, experiments, applications,|journal=Cognitive Technology|year=1998|volume=3|issue=2|pages=4-8}}</ref>

{{Reflist|35em}}

[[Category:Cognitive psychology]]

article15<ref>{{cite journal|last=Reder|first=Lynne|coauthors=John Anderson; Robert Bjork|title=A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology|year=1974|month=April|volume=102|issue=4|pages=648-656}}</ref>

{{reflist}}