The Effect of Presence and Type of Encoding Cue on Memory-Erica Starr

Running head: ENCODING CUES & MEMORY 1

The Effect of Presence and Type of Encoding Cue on Memory

Erica Starr

Hofstra University


Abstract

In the present study, two experiments were conducted to provide continued evidence for the

encoding specificity principle and the levels of processing theory as they relate to memory. In

question was whether or not the presence of cues during the encoding process would affect recall

for target words, and if so, which types of encoding cues would provide the greatest performance

on subsequent retrieval tests. Utilizing word pairs and a cued recall test, Experiment 1 looked

specifically at the encoding specificity principle by comparing the effects of having no encoding

cue versus having the same cue at encoding and retrieval or a different cue at encoding and

retrieval. It was predicted that when conditions were matched, recall for target words would be

greatest. When encoding cues were present, recall was better than when no cue was present, and

performance was heightened when cues at encoding and retrieval matched. Based on these

results, Experiment 2 utilized the levels of processing theory to determine whether the degree of

processing used when encoding cues would affect recognition following an incidental leaning

task. It was expected that recognition for words encoded using a semantic process would be

greatest, followed by words encoded using more shallow levels of processing. The greatest

proportion of words recognized were those that were encoded using a semantic process. Thus,

the presence of encoding cues, especially those of a semantic nature, as well as using matched

encoding and retrieval conditions, result in optimal performance when testing memory for target

items.

Keywords: encoding specificity, levels of processing, word pairs, cued recall, recognition


The Effect of Presence and Type of Encoding Cue on Memory

Encoding specificity refers to the idea that successful recall of a previous event depends

on the interaction between encoding and retrieval cues. This means that if a participant pays

attention to rhyming encoding cues, a rhyming cue at retrieval will be more effective than a

semantic cue if the participant is asked to recall a target word. The levels of processing theory

suggests that information is remembered as a function of how deeply it is processed. Thus,

information processed using semantic processing tends to lead to deeper processing than rhyme

processing, which also lends itself to better memory for information encoded semantically

(Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers, 2011).

In Unsworth, Brewer, and Spiller’s (2011) study, participants engaged in a paired

associates cued recall task following an encoding task in which rhyme or semantic judgments

were used. Across the rhyme and semantic conditions, encoding and retrieval conditions could

be either matched or mismatched. When the encoding and retrieval conditions matched,

participants who were previously categorized as having a high working memory capacity

outperformed participants who were shown to have a low working memory capacity. It is

believed that high working memory capacity individuals utilize cuing information better than do

low capacity individuals. This also leads to the belief that performance on recall tests by high

capacity individuals will suffer if they are unable to make use of encoding cues in a helpful

fashion.

However, when the encoding and retrieval conditions did not match, this pattern did not

show. Instead, both high and low working memory capacity individuals performed equally well

on a cued recall test. Thus, if high working memory capacity individuals are presented with

mismatched encoding and retrieval conditions, they perform at the same level as low capacity


individuals, who are thought to make less use of encoding cues when trying to recall words at

test (Unsworth et al., 2011).

Participants in their study saw a list of word pairs in which the target word was presented

in uppercase letters and the cue in lowercase letters. The cue word either rhymed with or was

semantically related to the target word shown. During each presentation, participants made a

rhyme judgment or semantic judgment by comparing the cue word to the target word. For each

of these judgments, participants also decided how well they thought the target word either

rhymed or related to the cue word on a scale from 1-4, with 1 being a weak relationship. For

encoding and retrieval, Unsworth et al. (2011) utilized four conditions. There was a rhyme-

matched condition, a semantic-matched condition, a rhyme-semantic mismatched condition, and

a semantic-rhyme mismatched condition.

Performance was best when encoding conditions matched retrieval conditions, and was

also better for the semantic matched condition compared to the rhyme matched condition. These

results provided support for both the encoding specificity principle and the levels of processing

theory. For individuals who make great use of the relationship between the encoding and

retrieval cues, mismatched conditions are particularly harmful to recall performance.

Still, the encoding specificity principle is often misrepresented to suggest that an increase

in the encoding-retrieval match always leads to an increase in recall or recognition performance.

Thus, it has been thought that retrieval is not just about picking the correct target, but also about

rejecting targets that are incorrect. This perspective is known as memory as discrimination,

which considers the part that cue overload plays in memory retrieval. Poirier, Nairne, Morin,

Zimmermann, Koutmeridou, & Fowler (2012) challenged the encoding-retrieval match principle


and found that increasing the encoding-retrieval match principle can actually lead to no change,

an increase, or a decrease in retrieval performance. They made a counter intuitive prediction that

suggested that increasing the encoding-retrieval match would hinder retrieval performance.

In addition, Poirier et al. (2012) sought to provide evidence for the cue overload

hypothesis, which suggests that as the number of individual items in memory associated with a

specific cue increases, the effectiveness of that cue decreases. Thus, the cue overload hypothesis

is consistent with a belief that being provided with too many cues can serve as a source of

interference for memory.

The memory as discrimination and cue overload hypotheses do not completely do away

with the encoding specificity principle; rather, they suggest that what determines the probability

that a target word will be recalled is the degree to which a single cue is uniquely associated with

the target word (Poirier et al., 2012).

The task used to test these hypotheses was comprised of a learning phase and a test

phase. Participants learned which cues were linked to which targets, and were instructed that

they would be required to retrieve targets later on using cues made available to them.

Different from traditional cue-target studies, Poirier et al.’s (2012) study made use of

targets that were words, consonant-vowel non-words, or drawings of animals. The cues were

either shapes, words, drawings of fruit, or drawings of objects. In addition, some cues were

determined to be unique cues if they were associated with only one target, and shared cues if

they were associated with two targets. During the recall period, adding the presence of a shared

cue to the presence of the unique cue for a target increased the similarity between the encoding

and retrieval conditions because multiple cues were shown. Although this intuitively would


result in greater recall, the presence of a shared cue was predicted to reduce discriminability

among targets, which would negatively affect recall.

When either one unique cue or two unique cues were used, accuracy and response time

did not differ. However, when a shared cue was introduced, performance across both measures

was reduced. This pattern of results was also replicated using meaningful verbal stimuli.

The results obtained by Poirier et al. (2012) show that less information is more helpful if

that information is more uniquely diagnostic of the target to be retrieved. Thus, in order to

determine the effectiveness of a cue it is necessary to consider both the cue-target and cue-

competitor relationships at the same time.

Jou (2010) looked at whether associative information could be separated from item

information. In accordance with the pairing effect, which is similar to the encoding specificity

principle, it was predicted that words tested within the contexts of encoding at retrieval would be

recalled better than when the retrieval context did not match. When given word pairs to study,

participants were asked to remember the two words, but not their association. At test, they

decided if two words shown were old, which was indicated by a yes response, and they

responded no if one of the two words was new. Reaction time for making this decision was

recorded. Follow-up judgments were also made regarding whether participants somewhat felt

they remembered seeing the word pair during study, could recall details about studying the pair,

or guessed as to whether the two words were old or not.

Rearranged pairs produced longer reaction times than did unchanged pairs, and

presenting more study cycles did not reduce the pairing effect. Results also showed that

participants had a difficult time ignoring associative information, indicating that this type of


processing may be automatic rather than effortfully controlled. These findings are indeed

consistent with the encoding specificity principle, even though the pairs used in this study were

randomly created and did not consist of unified semantic information (Jou, 2010).

Finley and Benjamin (2011) examined whether learners were able to make adaptive and

qualitative changes in the way they learned material after experiencing the demands of a

subsequent test given in a specific format. This phenomenon investigated the possibility of

learning to learn, as well as how strategies are affected by experience.

Students often want to know what material will be on a test in addition to what format the

test will be presented in in order to make the greatest use of study time and study strategies. In

the past, there has been little evidence found to support whether learners can actively change the

way in which they learn and study material if they have knowledge about the upcoming format

of a test (Finley & Benjamin, 2011).

Specifically, focus was placed on how learners changed their encoding strategies during

the study period for learning words depending on how they expected to be tested on those words.

This was done using the test-expectancy paradigm, which compares performance on a particular

test format by participants led to expect that test format versus the performance of individuals led

to expect a different format (Finley & Benjamin, 2011). Their study used both cued and free

recall tests.

Based on how difficult an upcoming test may be, participants could either change the

degree to which they were using an encoding strategy, thus inflicting a quantitative change, or

change to a different encoding strategy, thus making a qualitative change, which is independent

of putting more effort into studying.


Word pairs were used as learning material, and they predicted that an expectation of a

cued recall test would result in the use of cue-target association strategies. On the contrary, an

expectation of a free recall test would result in the use of target-target association encoding

strategies, as well as selective attention being paid to the target words as opposed to cue words.

After engaging in a number of test-study cycles in which the type of test did not change,

participants received a final test that utilized either the same format or the alternate format

compared to their first couple of study-test cycles. Participants who expected the same format

and received the same format outperformed those who had expected the same format but

received the other format. Thus, different encoding strategies were said to be used to prepare for

cued recall tests as opposed to free recall tests. Performance across multiple study lists also

increased for free recall but not for cued recall, which was affected more by the associative

strength of the cues to the target words (Finley & Benjamin, 2011).

Participants in Finley & Benjamin’s (2011) study responded that they would have used

different encoding strategies had they known they would have been given a different test format.

When told which test format they were to be given, participants were able to adapt their

encoding strategies to best serve recall performance for that type of test. Given a choice as to

how much study time was allocated also helped performance, especially for free recall.

These results raise questions for future research regarding realistic testing formats such as

multiple choice and essay tests, in which determining the best encoding strategies for recall

could reduce wasted study time. Thus, it is possible to work smarter, rather than just harder

(Finley & Benjamin, 2011).


Loaiza, McCabe, Youngblood, Rose, & Myerson (2011) examined whether retrieval from

reading and operation span tasks and episodic memory tasks such as free recall would be

affected by levels-of-processing manipulations. Using a reading span test, they integrated study

items with the processing task, believing that the combination provides semantic cues helpful for

retrieving items from long-term memory.

Loaiza et al.’s (2011) reading task utilized sentences in which the to-be-remembered

word appeared in capital letters at the end of the sentence. Half of the sentences were deeply

related to the target word through the use of semantic comparisons, and half were shallowly

related through the use of structural comparisons. For each type of sentence, half were true

statements and half were false. Some examples of stimuli from their task include: The brother of

one of your parents is an UNCLE. A word made up of five letters is UNCLE. The brother of

one of your parents is a LETTER (Loaiza et al., 2011).

Participants read the sentences aloud and responded with whether the sentence was true

or false. After the presentation of a few sentences, they were asked to either recall the target

words in serial order or free-recall the target words. Deeper levels of processing led to better

immediate recall performance than shallow processing for this task, as well as led to better

performance on a delayed recall test. The reading span task may allow for the recovery of the

sentence stems used at encoding, which can be used to help recall the target words on both

immediate and delayed recall tests.

A study conducted by Rose, Myerson, Roediger III, & Hale (2010) showed that depth of

processing had little effect on working memory tests, but memory for the same items on delayed

tests show the typical benefits of semantic processing. Primary memory, also known as working


memory, reflects the current contents of memory, whereas secondary memory, also known as

long-term memory, reflects information learned that must be brought back into conscious

awareness by some type of retrieval process. It is this long-term memory that is thought to be

very sensitive to the effects of levels of processing. Rose et al. (2010) predicted that semantic

information would have a greater effect on retention than phonological or visual features of

words.

Participants saw target words followed by two processing words presented side by side.

Three conditions involved either matching the color of a processing word to the target word,

determining which one rhymed with it, or determining which one was semantically related to the

target. Participants then attempted to recall the target words in serial order. After, participants

were given a surprise recognition test, in which half the words shown had been previously

presented and half were lures that were matched to the target words based on length and

frequency. Following recognition decisions, participants also rated how confident they were

with their decision. Although no significant differences were found between the levels of

processing for immediate recall, delayed recall did show a typical levels of processing effect in

favor of semantic features (Rose et al., 2010). In neither of their experiments did supposedly

deeper, semantic processing benefit working memory performance.

Mulligan & Picklesimer (2011) studied the cue dependent nature of recollection. These

experiments also demonstrated a consistent reversal of the levels of processing effect in favor of

non-semantic encoding processes. On study trials, participants saw a question on a computer

screen, which related to either a semantic or a rhyming encoding process. They then heard the

words over a speaker, and had to respond to the question with yes or no using the “y” and “n”

keys. They then received either a standard recognition test or a rhyme recognition test, which


involved deciding if the test word rhymed with a word presented during study. Showing the

opposite of standard recognition test results, rhyme recognition was better for the phonological

than semantic condition, at least for yes items. This implied that semantic encoding does not

generally enhance recollection, but that recollection depends on the nature of the retrieval task

(Mulligan & Picklesimer, 2011).

A follow-up experiment used statements and word stems to present clues about the

identity of target words during the study phase, and presented either rhyme or semantic

information about the word, along with the first two letters of the target word. Participants had

to try to generate the target word, and accuracy was greater for the phonological condition.

Thus, under some conditions, semantic encoding does not enhance recollection. When

retrieval cues match a more shallow encoding condition, this condition produces better

recollection than does the semantic condition. These results place doubt on the levels of

processing effect in favor of the encoding specificity principle as it relates to matching encoding

and retrieval conditions. The typical levels of processing effect can easily be reversed if

appropriate matching conditions such as rhyming encoding cues and rhyming retrieval cues are

used (Mulligan & Picklesimer, 2011).

A common explanation of the levels of processing effect is that deep processing activates

increased knowledge compared to shallow processing. This information is then used to form

associative and elaborate memory traces. This semantic processing also helps to encode more

unique features from cue words that can be used to perform well on a recall or recognition test.

Gallo, Meadow, Johnson, & Foster (2008) tested this explanation using the distinctiveness

heuristic, which works in favor of semantic processing. In their study, words presented visually


were preceded by a question of whether the word was pleasant or contained the letter “e”. Each

processing task had its own list of words to judge, except for some words that were present in

both lists. Then, participants were given a standard recognition test, a recognition test involving

whether a shallow letter judgment was made, and a recognition test involving whether a deep

pleasantness judgment was made. Participants were less likely to make false recognition

judgments for the words they judged to be pleasant or not, suggesting that the semantic

judgments were easier to recollect (Gallo et al., 2008).

However, by having participants transcribe the words that were judged using the shallow,

letter “e” containing task, the levels of processing effect was diminished and false recognition

was equated between the lists containing shallowly judged or deeply judged words. When asked

to transcribe the lists for both levels of processing, the distinctiveness heuristic returned and deep

processing showed less false recognition because participants could not distinguish between the

lists using the transcription process (Gallo et al., 2008).

In this study, false recognition effects following a shallow encoding process could only

be diminished when another task was added, and not merely by rehearsing the list a greater

number of times. Thus, qualitative information is weighted more heavily than quantitative

information when it comes to examining memory decisions.

As seen above, previous research has been equivocal in its findings regarding both the

encoding specificity principle and the levels of processing theory. Thus, the present research

was conducted in order to replicate results that support both of these theories. Experiment 1 used

a cued recall test to determine the importance of using encoding cues as well as whether matched

conditions at encoding and retrieval does produce optimal recall performance. The method used


was similar to Unsworth, Brewer, and Spiller’s (2011) study in which target words appeared in

uppercase and cue words appeared in lower case. It was also predicted that matched conditions

would lead to better recall. However, the current study used mismatched semantic cues rather

than including the levels of processing theory within the design. Experiment 2 was somewhat

similar to Loaiza et al.’s (2011) reading span task in which target words appeared in capital

letters at the end of the sentence. Half of their sentences utilized semantic comparisons, and half

used structural comparisons. The present study simplified the task by using simple words, three

levels of processing tasks, as well as a recognition test rather than a free recall test. Based on

prior evidence, it was predicted that participants would recognize a greater proportion of words

correctly which were learned using a deep encoding process, such as making a semantic

comparison between a word and the target word.

Experiment 1

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to determine whether one’s ability to recall a target

word is affected by the presence of a cue at encoding, and if so, how performance is affected

when the cue presented at encoding matches or does not match the cue present at retrieval. This

experiment was broken up into two phases. In Phase 1, participants saw a list of 45 word pairs in

which if a cue word was presented, it appeared in lowercase letters to the left of a target word,

which appeared in uppercase letters. Sometimes no cue was presented, and only the target word

was shown. In Phase 2, participants were asked to produce the target words by typing them in on

the computer when shown either no cue, the same cue for the target word that was used at

encoding, or a different, but related cue than was presented at encoding. Responses recorded

demonstrated the percentage of times that the target words were recalled correctly for the three

cue conditions. Based on evidence found for the encoding specificity principle, such as in the


results of the study conducted by Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers (2011), it was predicted that

participants would be more accurate in recalling the target words when the cue at retrieval

matched the cue at encoding than when there was a mismatch. A second prediction was made in

relation to the encoding specificity principle, such that if superior recall performance results

when cue and retrieval conditions match, the conditions of No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue

and Encoding Cue-Same Retrieval Cue should warrant equal recall performance. However,

without the context of a meaningful cue, it was predicted that the No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval

Cue condition would elicit suboptimal performance compared to that of the Encoding Cue-Same

Retrieval Cue condition, which utilized a meaningful semantic cue.

Method

Participants

Eighteen undergraduate college students participated in this study. All participants were

students enrolled in Dr. Weingartner’s Cognitive Psychology Seminar at Hofstra University.

Materials and Design

Loosely based on Thomson and Tulving’s 1970 study, Experiment 1 was conducted

using a fully within-participants design, which consisted of two phases. In Phase 1, participants

saw a list of 45 word pairs, each of which was presented on a computer screen for three seconds.

All target words appeared in uppercase letters, and all cues were presented in lowercase letters.

On each trial, participants saw a pair of words that belonged to one of three conditions. They

either saw No Cue and a target word, Cue A and a target word, or Cue B and a target word. The

designations of Cue A and Cue B were only used to indicate whether participants would see the

same cue at encoding as at retrieval. There were no systematic differences between Cue A and

Cue B. In Phase 2, which also had 45 trials, participants were asked to produce the target word


by filling in missing letters when shown either No Cue, Cue A, or Cue B. Participants were

given written instructions regarding both phases of the experiment prior to the first trial, and the

entire experiment took approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Procedure

Participants responded using library classroom computers via the Wadsworth Coglab

Online Laboratory 2.0 website. Participants responded by pressing specific keys that

corresponded to the choices given in the instructions they received. All participants completed

the experiment at the same time and in the same room, and no talking was permitted for the

duration of the experiment, which concluded when all participants had completed Phase 2.

In Phase 1, participants started a trial by pressing the space bar. They then saw a list of 45

word pairs, each for three seconds, such as cup-DESK, where the first word in lowercase letters

was the cue, and the second word in UPPERCASE letters was the target. Sometimes no cue

would be shown, in which the pair would look something like ????-DESK. No additional

responses were required in Phase 1.

After viewing all 45 word pairs in Phase 1, participants moved on to Phase 2, in which

they were asked to recall the words that were shown in uppercase in Phase 1. Sometimes a cue

was given, in which participants either saw Cue A or Cue B. This either matched or did not

match the cue given at encoding. Sometimes no cue was given. If participants received a cue, it

appeared on the computer screen as cup-D—K. Participants used the keyboard to type in the two

missing letters that would complete the target word. If they could not remember the target, they

were instructed to type in any two letters. If no cue was given, the pair would look something

like ????-D—K, and participants still attempted to fill in the missing letters. After recording


each response, participants pressed the space bar until they advanced through all 45 trials in

Phase 2.

Results

A 3 by 3 within-participants ANOVA with an alpha level of .05 was used to analyze the

effect of the presence of cues as well as the effect of matched and unmatched encoding and

retrieval cue conditions on recall. See Table 1 for a comparison of the mean percent correct

target recall for each of the encoding cue-retrieval cue conditions. Retrieval cue did not have a

main effect on mean recall, F (2, 34) = 0.04, p > .05. The results did reveal a main effect of

encoding cue, F (2, 34) = 80.69, p < .05, such that the marginal means for the No Encoding Cue,

Encoding Cue A, and Encoding Cue B conditions were M = 29.72, M = 67.41, and M = 70.93

respectively. This main effect was qualified by a significant interaction between encoding cue

and retrieval cue, F (4, 68) = 5.94, p < .05, and a Bonferroni adjustment was completed prior to

performing all t-tests, for which the alpha level used was .01.

The pattern of this interaction revealed that recall performance for the matched condition

of Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A was significantly greater than that of the Encoding Cue A-

Retrieval Cue B condition, t (17) = 3.56, p < .01. Recall performance for the matched condition

of Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B was also significantly greater than that of the Encoding Cue

B-Retrieval Cue A condition, t (17) = 3.22, p < .01. Mean percent recall for the conditions of

Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A and Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B was not statistically

different, t (17) = -0.45, p > .01. There were also no statistical differences between mean percent

recall for the Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue A condition compared to that of the Encoding Cue

A-Retrieval Cue B condition, t (17) = 1.10, p > .01.


In addition, mean recall performance for the No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue

condition was significantly lower than that of the Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A condition, t

(17) = -7.58, p < .01.

Discussion

For Experiment 1, the first prediction stated that percent recall would be higher when a

cue at retrieval matched a cue at encoding than when the cues did not match. As expected, for

conditions Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A and Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B, there were

no significant differences between the groups, as both these conditions matched encoding cue to

retrieval cue. There were also no significant differences between the groups who were

oppositely mismatched, which were Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue A and Encoding Cue A-

Retrieval Cue B. Thus, it did not matter the order in which mismatched cues were given, as they

both led to equally suboptimal recall performance. There were significant differences in recall

between the conditions of Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A and Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue

B. Those in Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A condition supported the encoding specificity

principle and indeed performed better than participants who received Encoding Cue A followed

by Retrieval Cue B. This significant advantage also occurred for the Encoding Cue B-Retrieval

Cue B condition compared to those who received Encoding Cue B and Retrieval Cue A. Again,

this provides evidence for the encoding specificity principle, and also suggests that similar to the

oppositely mismatched conditions, those in the matched Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A

condition performed just as well as those in the Encoding Cue B-Retrieval Cue B condition.

The second prediction set out to compare whether the presence of a meaningful cue versus

the presence of the same non-cue at both encoding and retrieval would affect the occurrence of

the encoding specificity principle. As stated before, according to the encoding specificity


principle, superior recall performance should arise when cue and retrieval conditions match. This

being said, in theory, the conditions of No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue and Encoding Cue

A-Retrieval Cue A should have warranted equal recall performance. However, it was predicted

that without the context of a meaningful cue, the No Encoding Cue-No Retrieval Cue condition,

although matched, would elicit suboptimal recall performance compared to that of the Encoding

Cue A-Retrieval A condition, which did utilize a meaningful semantic cue at both encoding and

retrieval. Results showed that this prediction was correct, and the Encoding Cue A-Retrieval

Cue A group performed significantly better on the recall test than those in the No Encoding Cue-

No Retrieval Cue group. Since both conditions were matched at encoding and retrieval, we can

attribute the differences in recall performance to the fact that the meaningful semantic cues used

in the Encoding Cue A-Retrieval Cue A condition helped participants remember more target

words at test.

Although Experiment 1 provided evidence for the encoding specificity principle and the

theory that matched encoding cues and retrieval cues enhances recall, it was unclear whether this

conclusion would generalize to situations where the type of cue used at encoding was

manipulated according to the levels of processing theory immediately preceding a recognition

test.

Experiment 2

Since Experiment 1 determined that the presence of cues at encoding produces better

recall for target words in a cued recall test than when there is no cue present, Experiment 2 was

motivated by the question of whether or not the type of encoding cue matters as it relates to how

well words can be recalled at retrieval. It is possible that cues that represent different levels of

processing promote better retrieval than others do, even if a recognition test is used rather than a


cued recall test. Experiment 2 traded the presence of matched conditions at encoding and

retrieval for the presence of supposedly stronger and weaker encoding cues preceding this

recognition test. Experiment 2 was also presented in two phases. In Phase 1, participants saw a

target word and a judgment task, which represented the level of processing to be used to encode

the target word. The shallow encoding task consisted of comparing a consonant-vowel word

structure to the target word. In the medium encoding task, participants determined if the cue

rhymed with the target word, and in the deep encoding task, they determined if the cue was

similar in meaning to the target word. In Phase 2, participants saw a list of words, half of which

had appeared in Phase 1. Their task was to determine if the word had appeared in Phase 1 or not.

Thus, by manipulating the level of processing induced by the orienting task in Phase 1 to include

shallow, medium, and deep encoding processes, Experiment 2 sought to measure the proportion

of times target words were correctly recognized as being in Phase 1 for each encoding condition.

In support of Loaiza et al.’s (2011) study, which found evidence for the levels of processing

theory using a reading span task, it was predicted that participants would correctly recognize a

greater number of target words which were learned using a deep encoding process compared to

those learned using a shallow encoding process.

Method

Participants

Twenty undergraduate college students participated in this study; however, one

participant’s data was not included in the analysis of this experiment due to experimenter error.

All participants were students enrolled in Dr. Weingartner’s Cognitive Psychology Seminar at

Hofstra University.

Materials and Design


Modeled after Craik and Tulving’s 1975 study, this experiment employed a fully within-

participants design that utilized the levels of processing theory to determine whether cues

encoded by shallow, medium, or deep processing during an incidental learning task would affect

recognition of target words. This experiment, like Experiment 1, consisted of two phases

completed one after the other. Participants were given written instructions regarding both phases

before the start of the experiment. In Phase 1, a total of 60 judgments had to be made. The

judgments were split into blocks of 20 incidental learning tasks in order to cover the three levels

of processing, which were represented by judgments involving letters, rhyming words, and

synonyms. In Phase 2, a total of 120 judgments had to be made regarding whether words shown

had appeared in Phase 1. Half of the 120 words shown did appear in Phase 1; the other half were

new words. Participants knew this would occur as per their given instructions, but new and old

words appeared in random order. The entire experiment took participants approximately 30

minutes to complete.

Procedure

Participants recorded their own responses on library classroom computers using the

Wadsworth Coglab Online Laboratory 2.0 website. Participants responded by pressing specific

keys that corresponded to the choices given in the instructions they received. All participants

completed the experiment at the same time and in the same room. No talking was permitted for

the duration of the experiment (until all participants had completed Phase 2).

In Phase 1, participants pressed the space bar to start each trial. The [ z ] key was pressed

to indicate a NO response, and the [ / ] key was pressed to indicate a YES response. For each


trial in Phase 1, two words (or a word and a word structure) appeared on the screen side by side,

separated by a word indicating one of three tasks that would be used to compare the words.

The first task in Phase 1 (the first 20 trials) involved deciding whether the word shown

was made up of a particular pattern of consonants and vowels (letters). For example, if “dog

LETTERS cvc” appeared on the screen, participants would press the [ / ] key to indicate that

“dog” is indeed made up of a consonant/vowel/consonant structure. The next 20 trials involved a

rhyming task in which two words either rhymed or did not rhyme. For example, “dog RHYME

boat” would lead to a NO response, indicated by pressing the [ z ] key. The final 20 trials of

Phase 1 involved deciding if one word had a similar meaning to another (synonyms). An

example of this type of task would appear as “angry SYNONYM mad”, which in this case

should warrant a YES response, again indicated by pressing the [ / ] key.

After completing all 60 judgments in Phase 1, participants entered Phase 2, in which the

overarching question was “Was this word in Phase 1?” Participants saw one word on the screen

at a time. If participants believed they had seen the word in Phase 1, they pressed the [ / ] key to

indicate a YES response. If participants believed that the word had not appeared in Phase 1, they

pressed the [ z ] key to indicate a NO response. Participants pressed the space bar to advance

through all 120 trials of Phase 2.

Results

An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. See Figure 1 for a comparison of

the mean percent word recognition for each of the three encoding conditions. The results from a

one-way, within participants ANOVA indicated that the level of processing used at encoding

influenced participants’ mean accuracy on the recognition test, F (2, 36) = 16.34, p < .05. Mean


correct recognition for those words that appeared in the rhyming task of Phase 1 was 9% greater

than the correct number of words recognized from the letters task, t (18) = -2.31, p < .05. Mean

correct recognition for those words which appeared in the synonym task was 16% greater than

those words recognized from the rhyming task, t (18) = -3.73, p < .05. Mean correct recognition

was also 25% higher for words that appeared in the synonym task compared to the letters task, t

(18) = -4.88, p < .05.

Discussion

By manipulating the level of processing induced by the orienting task in Phase 1 to

include shallow, medium, and deep encoding processes, Experiment 2 measured how often target

words were correctly recognized as being in Phase 1. It was found that the type of encoding cue

used does matter for retrieval in that deep, semantic cues used at encoding produced much

greater recognition than shallow or medium level processing cues, such as consonant/vowel

word structures and rhyming words. As predicted, a significantly greater number of words

shown in Phase 2 were recognized that had been encoded using the synonym task in Phase 1 than

those that had been encoded with either the rhyming task or the letters task. In addition,

significantly more words that had been encoded using the rhyming task in Phase 1 were

recognized than words that were encoded using the letters task.

General Discussion

The above experiments were conducted in response to equivocal research concerning the

encoding specificity principle and the levels of processing theory. Overall, the aim of the current

studies was to provide evidence in support of the encoding specificity principle using a simple

matched/non-matched encoding and retrieval condition paradigm. They were also directed at


finding out how important encoding cues are to performance on memory tests. In Experiment 1,

when encoding cues were presented, recall was better than when no encoding cue was presented,

regardless of whether the condition included no encoding cue and no retrieval cue (a matched

condition). Optimal recall performance occurred when the cue at encoding matched the cue at

retrieval, and even when cues were mismatched at encoding and retrieval, recall was better than

when no encoding cue was presented prior to receiving some retrieval cue.

Further support was also found for the levels of processing theory examined in

Experiment 2, such that cues encoded during an incidental learning task by shallow, medium, or

deep processing affected recall for a target word during a recognition test. This suggested that

the type of encoding cue does matter for recall, as the results for Experiment 2 demonstrated that

deep, semantic cues used at encoding produce much greater recall than shallow or medium level

processing cues, such as consonant/vowel word structures and rhyming words.

Ideally, participants would have been naïve to the fact that they would be receiving a

memory test following the study period at the end of both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, as

well as unequipped with the knowledge that the judgment tasks in Experiment 2 were designed

to control for using different levels of processing during the encoding period. Thus, it cannot be

said for certain whether participants used the type of processing that was encouraged by the task

to remember the target words. It is also possible that the number of trials in Phase 2 for

Experiment 2 was excessive, lending itself to the possible fatigue of participants, and as a result

hindered recognition performance. Experiment 1 also limited encoding viewing time to three

seconds, which may not have been long enough for participants to successfully encode the word

pairs. This time limit could have affect accuracy on the later cued recall test independent of

whether participants actually tried to use the cues to remember the target words. In addition,


previous research done by Mulligan & Picklesimer (2011) demonstrated a consistent reversal of

the levels of processing effect in favor of non-semantic encoding processes such as rhyming.

After using a rhyming encoding process, a rhyme recognition test found evidence for better

recognition for items rehearsed phonologically rather than semantically. This implication that

semantic encoding does not generally enhance recollection, but that recollection performance is

related to the nature of the retrieval task, suggests that the results found presently may have been

due to a bias toward promoting enhanced recognition for semantically encoded words.

Based on the present findings, future research should move in the direction of

determining the effects of the encoding specificity principle and the levels of processing theory

on performance on realistic tests. For example, an experiment will make use of different types of

study strategies related to learning the same information that will be tested by means of a short

answer test given on paper. Participants will be screened for normal reading, hearing, and

speaking ability prior to participating in the experiment. The study strategies will range from

passive reading of material in order to learn it, to actively teaching the material to someone else

who is not familiar with it. Intermediate strategies will include listening to information related to

the topic and discussing the topic with other people who are somewhat familiar with it. Similar

to previous research, the to-be-studied material will be presented in written form, prior to study,

and learning will represent a semantic encoding process, since the short answer test will utilize

semantic information. This set-up is consistent with findings that support the encoding

specificity principle as it relates to processing semantic information at both study and test. It

also provides conditions to test the levels of processing theory as it relates to learning

information using increasingly complex methods. This experiment will employ a between

participants design such that participants will belong to one of four possible study conditions:


Read, Listen, Discuss, or Teach. See Appendix A for a description of stimuli for each condition

of the experiment. Study sessions for each condition will last 45 minutes. Immediately after

studying, participants will be presented with short answer questions related to the original

information they were presented with. They will have 45 minutes to complete the test.

Following the test, participants will not receive feedback, but will instead complete a

distractor task involving simple math problems. After completing the distractor task, participants

will have completed one session. Participants will return for a second session one week later

consisting of another short answer test in order to assess delayed recall for the studied

information. The procedure will be the same as the first test session, minus the distractor task.

Performance on both the immediate test and the delayed test for each of the four conditions will

be assessed based on accuracy and average time spent answering each question, which will be

determined by participants signaling that they have recorded their final answer for the question.

It is predicted that accuracy of test answers will be highest for the Teach condition, and

that the average time spent answering the questions will be the lowest of all the conditions

because the study process is very active. The lowest accuracy and longest answer times should

occur with the Read condition, which employs a passive study strategy. The Discuss group

should perform almost as accurately as the Teach condition, but it is predicted they will take

longer to answer the questions due to interference from having heard others give their ideas

about the study topic. These results should stay consistent following the completion of the

delayed recall test. See Appendix B for examples of test stimuli.


References

Finley, J. R. & Benjamin, A. S. (2012). Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy

with experience: Evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 632-652.

Gallo, D. A., Meadow, N. G., Johnson, E.L., & Foster, K. T. (2008). Deep levels of processing

elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task. Journal of

Memory and Language, 58, 1095-1111.

Jou, J. (2010). Can associative information be strategically separated from item information in

word-pair recognition? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 778-783.

Loaiza, V. M., McCabe, D. P., Youngblood, J. L., Rose, N. S., & Myerson, J. (2011). The

influence of levels of processing on recall from working memory and delayed recall

tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5),

1258-1263.

Mulligan, N. W. & Picklesimer, M. (2012). Levels of processing and the cue-dependent nature of

recollection. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 79-92.

Poirier, M, Nairne, J. S., Morin, C., Zimmerman, F. G. S., Koutmeridou, K., & Fowler, J. (2012).

Memory as discrimination: A challenge to the encoding-retrieval match principle.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 16-29.

Rose, N. S., Myerson, J., Roediger III, H. L., & Hale, S. (2010). Similarities and differences

between working memory and long-term memory: Evidence from the levels-of-

processing span task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 36(2), 471-483.


Unsworth, N., Brewer, G. A., & Spillers, G. J. (2011). Variation in working memory capacity

and episodic memory: Examining the importance of encoding specificity. Psychonomic

Bulletin & Review, 18, 1113-1118.


Table 1


Fig. 1. Percent correct word recognition as a function of level of processing at encoding


Appendix A

Example of information to be studied taken from: https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472030655-readingcompquiz.pdf

**All participants will read the story once prior to engaging in the study period.

Read Condition: Participants will reread the above story during the allotted study period, as many times as time allows.

Listen Condition: Participants will listen to a recording of the story for the remainder of the study period, as many times as time allows.

Discuss Condition: Participants will be placed in groups of three to discuss the contents of the story. They can refer to the written piece as necessary for the duration of the study period.

Teach Condition: Participants will teach the story material to one other person and attempt to hold a discussion after teaching for the allotted study period. They can refer to the written piece as necessary.


Appendix B

Example of test information taken from: https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472030655-readingcompquiz.pdf

Examples of Short Answer Test Questions:

1. Which skills suffer the most over the summer vacation?A: Spelling and math.

2. Why is reading not so much of a problem?A: Most children read occasionally outside the classroom.

3. Describe school vacations in Japan:A: The school vacations are constant throughout the year, occurring every seven weeks for two weeks at a time.

4. What is the weekly school schedule like in Italy?A: Students attend classes on Saturday but finish at 1:30pm.

5. The original reason for summer vacation was to:A: Let farm children have time off to help work in the fields in the high growing season.

6. Countries without enough school facilities:A: Divide the school day between older and younger students.

7. How many months of learning do children forget over summer vacation?A: One to three months.

8. How long does it take children to return to their previous level of proficiency?A: Up to two months.

Education

The Effect of Presence and Type of Encoding Cue on Memory-Erica Starr