Encoding specificity principle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:59, 6 October 2011

Revision as of 15:07, 18 October 2011

Line 1:

==Initial Description==

{{unreferenced|date=October 2011}}

==Basic Methods==

==Specific Results==

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

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

====Physical Environment====

====Auditory Environment====

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

===Encoding Specificity and Drugs===

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

===Encoding Specificity and Advertising===

===Encoding Specificity and Social Cognition===

===Encoding Specificity and Deja Vu===

==Criticism==

The '''encoding specificity principle''' is a theory, also referred to as “context shock” by psychologist Philip Zimbardo <ref>Gerrig, Richard J., and Philip G. Zimbardo. "Memory." Psychology and Life. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2008. Print.</ref>, within [[cognitive psychology]] regarding encoding and retrieval of memory. In short, ''encoding'' is the processing of information that leads to a representation being stored in memory. ''Retrieval'' is then the recovery of the memory at another time. The principle explains that the context in which you encode a memory becomes the optimal context in which you can retrieve your memory again at a later time. Other than offering insight to how our memory works in different situations, the theory of encoding specificity emphasizes the importance of the environment in which we first retrieve a memory as a connection between encoding and retrieval.<ref>Nairne, James S. "The myth of the encoding–retrieval match." Memory 10.5/6 (2002): 389-395. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.</ref>

===Theory===

This theory of “encoding specificity” was developed by the memory researcher Endel Tulving and emphasizes the importance of retrieval cues in accessing episodic memories. The theory introduced the concept of episodic memory, which is a form of long-term memory dedicated to specific personal experiences in a way that it emerges most efficiently in the context of those experiences.<ref>Sheehy, Noel. "BEHIND THE NAME." The Psychologist 18.4 (2005): 237. Print.</ref> Psychologists, Tulving and Thomson (1973) carried out an experiment which demonstrated the power of encoding specificity. The participants were told to remember the second word of the pair train-black in which train was the context as it was stated first, causing the word black to be related to it. Tulving and Thomson found that change in context mattered for memory retrieval, as the participants who had been told to remember the word black in the context of train, after some time, had a harder time recovering the memory of the word black when the context was changed to white.<ref>Gerrig, Richard J., and Philip G. Zimbardo. "Memory." Psychology and Life. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2008. Print.</ref> The context of train served as a part of the participants’ experience in remembering the word black. In other words, the retrieval of memory is primarily determined by the specific conditions of its initial encoding. Tulving has dubbed the process through which a retrieval cue activates a stored memory "synergistic ecphory."

===Evidence===

Initial evidence for the encoding specificity principle came from cued recall experiments using word lists. The principle is also 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. On the other hand, experiments on the theory of encoding specificity have demonstrated that context is a major contributor to the match between encoding and retrieval. Psychologists Hannon and Daneman conducted several experiments to support their claim that “success of our future activities is contingent on the similarity between a cue in the environment and the mental picture we have for our intended activity” (Hannon and Daneman)<ref>Hannon, Brenda, and Meredyth Daneman. "Prospective memory: The relative effects of encoding, retrieval, and the match between encoding and retrieval." Memory 15.5 (2007): 572-604. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.</ref>, the “cue in the environment” being the context which emphasizes this “mental picture” of our experience. Furthermore, In their experiments they manipulated characteristics of the encoding-retrieval match in order to determine the relative contributions of the components, encoding, retrieval and context on prospective memory performance. Their findings showed that all three factors have an influence on the performance of prospective memory, which is remembering to act in a specific way according to a certain situation. Hannon and Daneman demonstrated that the encoding specificity principle -the context being a match between encoding and retrieval, affects prospective memory more so than episodic memory.

===Implications===

The implications of Hannon and Daneman’s findings open debate for how prospective memory is similar to retrospective memory. They predict that a match between encoding and retrieval has a greater effect on [[prospective memory]] performance than on retrospective memory (want to link to wikipage) performance. Another 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. Also, there is more information stored in memory relative to what can be retrieved at any given point (i.e., availability vs. accessibility). Moreover, the role of the encoding-retrieval match is “functional rather than nominal” and “retrieval cues must be a part of the original encoding in order to be effective” (Nairne)<ref>Nairne, James S. "The myth of the encoding–retrieval match." Memory 10.5/6 (2002): 389-395. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.</ref>. In other words, the more similar the context is between both encoding and retrieval the better the memory performs.

The theory of encoding-specificity claims that there is a correlation between the context in which a memory is being encoded, and the quality of the memory’s retrieval. The theory of encoding specificity contributes to the understanding our prospective memory and possibly increasing the quality of its performance.<ref>Hannon, Brenda, and Meredyth Daneman. "Prospective memory: The relative effects of encoding, retrieval, and the match between encoding and retrieval." Memory 15.5 (2007): 572-604. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Aug. 2011.</ref>

[[Category:Cognitive psychology]]

==References==

<references />

{{unreferenced|date=OctoberApril 20112010}}

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]].

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."

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.

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).

{{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>

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>

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>

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}}