Abstract
Memory for script-atypical information has been shown to be superior to memory for script-typical information. Two explanations of this typicality effect are evaluated: (1) the attention-elaboration hypothesis (AEH) and (2) the script-copy-plus-tag hypothesis (SCTH). The AEH claims that atypical information is recognized better because it attracts more attention and cognitive elaboration. According to the SCTH, memory representations of script-based texts are established automatically and constitute a copy of the script plus tags for atypical events that facilitate later recognition. We investigated recognition memory and memory for the presentation form of typical and atypical items originally shown with versus without missing letters. Experiment 1 showed that presenting items in fragmentary form tends to improve recognition memory mostly for highly typical items. Experiment 2 revealed that the size of this missing-letters effect is affected by the presentation form of items preceding the target items during acquisition. For fragmented items preceded by other fragmented items, the typicality effect virtually disappeared. Memory for the presentation form of items was generally moderate. These results are readily explained within the AEH framework and pose some problems for the SCTH.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adams, L. T., &Worden, P. E. (1986). Script development and memory organization in preschool and elementary school children.Discourse Processes,9, 149–166.
Alba, J. W., &Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic?Psychological Bulletin,93, 203–231.
Batchelder, W. H., Hu, X., &Riefer, D. M. (1994). Analysis of a model for source monitoring. In G. H. Fischer & D. Laming (Eds.),Contributions to mathematical psychology, psychometrics, and methodology (pp. 51–65). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1990). Multinomial models of source monitoring.Psychological Review,97, 548–642.
Batchelder, W. H., Riefer, D. M., &Hu, X. (1994). Measuring memory factors in source monitoring: Reply to Kinchla.Psychological Review,101, 172–176.
Bayen, U. J., Murnane, K., &Erdfelder, E. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 197–215.
Bellezza, F. S., &Bower, G. H. (1981). The representational and processing characteristics of scripts.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 1–4.
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 657–668.
Bobrow, D. G., &Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.),Representation and understanding (pp. 131–149). New York: Academic Press.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., &Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text.Cognitive Psychology,11, 177–220.
Bredenkamp, J., &Vaterrodt, B. (1992). Direkte und indirekte Gedächtnisprüfung skriptbezogener Informationen [Direct and indirect memory tests of script-based information].Sprache & Kognition,11, 14–26.
Brewer, W. F., &Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.),Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 119–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brewer, W. F., &Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places.Cognitive Psychology,13, 207–230.
Burns, D. J. (1990). The generation effect: A test between single and multifactor theories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 1060–1067.
Cantor, N., &Mischel, W. (1977). Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition memory.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,35, 38–48.
Cohen, C. E. (1981). Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,40, 441–452.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Craik, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 671–684.
Davidson, D. (1994). Recognition and recall of irrelevant and interruptive atypical actions in script-based stories.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 757–775.
Davidson, D., &Hoe, S. (1993). Children’s recall and recognition memory for typical and atypical actions in script-based stories. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology,55, 104–126.
Dijksterhuis, A., &van Knippenberg, A. (1995). Memory for stereotype-consistent and stereotype-inconsistent information as a function of processing pace.European Journal of Social Psychology,25, 689–693.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Bowers, C. A., &Stevens, D. T. (1984). Memory for prose: The influence of relational and proposition-specific processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 133–143.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., &Coté, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 566–581.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., &Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 1–11.
Erdfelder, E., Murnane, K., &Bayen, U. J. (1995). Die Messung kognitiver Prozesse im Paradigma der Quellendiskrimination [The measurement of cognitive processes in the source monitoring paradigm]. In K. Pawlik (Ed.),Bericht über den 39. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Hamburg (pp. 541–547). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Estes, W. K. (1964). Probability learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.),Categories of human learning (89–128). New York: Academic Press.
Fabricius, W. V., Hodge, M. H., &Quinan, J. R. (1993). Processes of scene recognition memory in young children and adults.Cognitive Development,8, 343–360.
Faul, F., &Erdfelder, E. (1992).GPOWER: Apriori, post hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [Computer program]. Bonn: Psychologisches Institut der Universität Bonn.
Fiedler, K., Lachnit, H., Fay, D., &Krug, C. (1992). Mobilization of cognitive resources and the generation effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,45A, 149–171.
Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 316–355.
Graesser, A. C., Gordon, S. E., &Sawyer, J. D. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities: Tests of the script pointer + tag hypothesis.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 319–332.
Graesser, A. C., &Nakamura, G. V. (1982). The impact of a schema on comprehension and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 59–109). New York: Academic Press.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., &Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.Psychological Review,101, 371–395.
Graesser, A. C., Woll, S. B., Kowalski, D. J., &Smith, D. A. (1980). Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 503–515.
Graf, P. (1982). The memorial consequences of generation and transformation.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 539–548.
Grube-Unglaub, S., Bredenkamp, J., Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, B., &Fischer, V. (1995). Indirekte Gedächtnisprüfung skriptbezogener Informationen [Indirect memory tests of script-based information].Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie,42, 1–24.
Hastie, R. (1980). Memory for behavioral information that confirms or contradicts a personality impression. In R. Hastie, T. Ostrom, E. Ebbesen, R. S. Wyer, D. L. Hamilton, & D. Carlston (Eds.),Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 155–177). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hu, X. (1991).Statistical inference program for multinomial binary tree models: Version 1.0 [Computer program]. Irvine: University of California at Irvine, Department of Mathematical Behavioral Sciences.
Hu, X., &Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm.Psychometrika,59, 21–47.
Hudson, J. A. (1988). Children’s memory for atypical actions in scriptbased stories: Evidence for a disruption effect.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,46, 159–173.
Hunt, J. M., Kernan, J. B., &Bonfield, E. H. (1992). Memory structure in the processing of advertising messages: How is unusual information represented?Journal of Psychology,126, 343–356.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.
Jones, M. R. (1971). From probability learning to sequential processing: A critical review.Psychological Bulletin,76, 153–185.
Kinchla, R. A. (1994). Comments on Batchelder and Riefer’s multinomial model for source monitoring.Psychological Review,101, 166–171.
Kintsch, W. (1970).Learning, memory, and conceptual processes. New York: Wiley.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W., &Ericsson, A. (1996). Die kognitive Funktion des Gedächtnisses [The cognitive function of memory]. In D. Albert & K.-H. Stapf (Eds.),Gedächtnis (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, C, II, Vol. 4, pp. 541–601). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., &Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis.Journal of Memory & Language,29, 133–159.
Light, L. L., Kayra-Stuart, F., &Hollander, S. (1979). Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 212–228.
Locksley, A., Stangor, C., Hepburn, C., Grosovsky, E., &Hochstrasser, M. (1984). The ambiguity of recognition memory tests of schema theories.Cognitive Psychology,16, 421–448.
Macrae, C. N., Hewstone, M., &Griffiths, R. J. (1993). Processing load and memory for stereotype-based information.European Journal of Social Psychology,23, 77–87.
Maki, R. H. (1990). Memory for script actions: Effects of relevance and detail expectancy.Memory & Cognition,18, 5–14.
Mandler, J. M. (1984).Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mäntylä, T., &Bäckman, L. (1992). Aging and memory for expected and unexpected objects in real-world settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1298–1309.
Markham, R., &Lissner, D. (1994). The effect of typicality and retention interval on discriminative memory for instruments.Australian Journal of Psychology,46, 170–176.
McDaniel, M. A. (1984). The role of elaborative and schema processes in story memory.Memory & Cognition,12, 46–51.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., Dunay, P. K., &Cobb, R. E. (1986). Encoding difficulty and memory: Toward a unifying theory.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 645–656.
McDaniel, M. A., &Kerwin, M. L. E. (1987). Long-term prose retention: Is an organizational schema sufficient?Discourse Processes,10, 237–252.
Murnane, K., &Bayen, U. J. (1996). An evaluation of empirical measures of source identification.Memory & Cognition,24, 417–428.
Nakamura, G. V., Graesser, A. C., Zimmerman, J. A., &Riha, J. (1985). Script processing in a natural situation.Memory & Cognition,13, 140–144.
O’Sullivan, C. S., &Durso, F. T. (1984). Effect of schema-incongruent information on memory for stereotypical attributes.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,47, 55–70.
Pezdek, K., Whetstone, T., Reynolds, K., Askari, N., &Dougherty, T. (1989). Memory for real-world scenes: The role of consistency with schema expectation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 587–595.
Read, T. R. C., &Cressie, N. A. C. (1988).Goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Riefer, D. M., Hu, X., &Batchelder, W. H. (1994). Response strategies in source monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 680–693.
Roediger, H. L., III,Weldon, M. S., &Challis, B. (1989). Explaining dissociations between implicit and explicit measures of retention: A processing account. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 4–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, R. C., &Abelson, R. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmalhofer, F., &Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 279–294.
Schmidt, D. F., &Sherman, R. C. (1984). Memory for persuasive messages: A test of a schema-copy-plus-tag model.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,47, 17–25.
Schmidt, S. R. (1992). Evaluating the role of distinctiveness in the generation effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 237–260.
Shapiro, P. N., &Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.Psychological Bulletin,100, 139–156.
Slamecka, N. J., &Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 592–604.
Smith, D. A., &Graesser, A. C. (1981). Memory for actions in scripted activities as a function of typicality, retention interval, and retrieval task.Memory & Cognition,9, 550–559.
Stangor, C., &Duan, C. (1991). Effects of multiple task demands upon memory for information about social groups.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,27, 357–378.
Stangor, C., &McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures.Psychological Bulletin,111, 42–61.
Strack, F., &Bless, H. (1994). Memory for non-occurrences: Meta-cognitive and presuppositional strategies.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 203–217.
Thomas, J. P., &Olzak, L. A. (1992). Simultaneous detection and identification. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.),Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 253–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vaterrodt, B. (1992).Skripts und Gedächtnis [Scripts and memory]. Frankfurt: Lang.
Woll, S. B., &Graesser, A. C. (1982). Memory discrimination for information typical and atypical of person schemata.Social Cognition,1, 287–310.
Yekovich, F. R., &Walker, C. H. (1986). Retrieval of scripted knowledge.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 627–644.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
The work on this article was supported by grants of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) to J.B. (Br301/6-1, Br301/6-2, and Br301/6-3).
—Accepted by previous associate editor Kathryn T. Spoehr
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erdfelder, E., Bredenkamp, J. Recognition of script-typical versus script-atypical information: Effects of cognitive elaboration. Mem Cogn 26, 922–938 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201173
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201173