Abstract
This experiment tested the claim of the model proposed by Atkinson and Juola (in press) that recognition responses in an RT task are a mixture of fast responses on the basis of the item’ s familiarity and slower responses based on a list search for the item. All Ss had to learn two 16-word lists (A and B). Then they had to respond alternately to “Is the following a List A word? ” and “Is the following a List B word? ” In the control task, the members of one list served as distractors for the other. Hence, the familiarity values of the targets and distractors were equal, and the only basis for response was a list search. In the experimental task, the distractors were not list words. Hence their familiarity was lower, and familiarity responses could be made. There were no differences between two groups of Ss when they all responded in the control task. But when half the Ss were switched to the experimental task, they responded significantly faster than the Ss who continued in the control task. In the experimental task, distractors were rejected quicker than targets were identified, but in the control task, the reverse was true. These results support the hypothesis that the control task required a list search while a familiarity judgment was possible in the experimental task.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. Human associative memory. Washington: Winston, 1973.
Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. Search and decision processes in recognition memory. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, and P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology. San Francisco: Freeman, in press.
Clark, H. H. The language-as-fixed effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 335–359.
Egeth, H. E. Parallel versus serial processes in multidimensional stimulus discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 1966, 7, 245–252.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 76(Monogr. Suppl. No. 1, Pt. 2).
Sternberg, S. The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and performance II. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1969. Pp. 276–315.
Tulving, E. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving and W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Pp. 381–403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
We thank K. Flanagan, S. Loeb, and C. Vasil for running Ss, G. Balzano for his help with the statistics, and R. Atkinson, G. Bower, K. Holyoak, and E. Smith for commenting on various versions of this paper. K. Wescourt made helpful suggestions at various stages of the experiment, most notably in successfully predicting and explaining the results before it was even begun. While this study was conducted, the first author held an N.S.F. graduate fellowship. This research was supported by Grant MN13950-06 from the National Institute of Mental Health to Gordon H. Bower, and is also sponsored by Bower, who takes full editorial responsibility for its contents.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glass, A.L., Cox, J. & LeVine, S.J. Distinguishing familiarity from list search responses in a reaction time task. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 4, 105–108 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334211
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334211