Content deleted Content added
Annabellelse (talk | contribs) Simplified the opening definition to make it easier to understand, removed unreferenced examples. Added section on the development of the concept, further criticisms and a section on studying. Restructured contents to make more sense and simplify information. |
Fix cite date error |
||
Line 1:
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.<sup>[[Encoding specificity principle#cite%20note-Tulving-1|[1]]]</sup>
It was introduced by Thompson and [[Endel Tulving|Tulving]] who suggested that contextual information is encoded with memories which effects the retrieval of said memories. 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|last=Tulving|first=Endel|last2=Thomson|first2=Donald M.|date=1971|title=Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of associative context.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030186|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 are ability to recall information.
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]].
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.
==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 memories 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|last=Tulving|first=Endel|last2=Osler|first2=Shirley|date=1968|title=Effectiveness of retrieval cues in memory for words.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/h0026069|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology
==Role of Semantics==
Line 84:
====Advertising====
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, 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 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140426231953/http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy |archivedate=26 April 2014
==== 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. Context in studying can mean the physical environment, the type of activity used to study and audio environment. 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. For example, practising the type of task that will be asked on the exam as a mode of studying.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011424237|title=The value of taking notes during lectures / Thomas H. Anderson, Bonnie B. Armbruster.|last=Anderson|first=Thomas H.|last2=Armbruster|first2=Bonnie B.|last3=National Institute of Education (U.S.)|last4=Bolt|first4=Beranek, and Newman, inc.|last5=University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.|date=1986|publisher=University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ; Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.|series=Technical report ;no. 374|___location=Champaign, Ill. : Cambridge, Mass.}}</ref> One study on different methods of studying showed that the students who read and took notes in outline form did the highest on the outlining section of a test.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mathews|first=C. O.|date=1938|title=Comparison of methods of study for immediate and delayed recall.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055182|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|citeseerx=10.1.1.377.6640}}</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 Highman has also criticised the design and interpretation of Thompson 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.
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
==References==
| |||