Encoding specificity

principle

The encoding specificity principle

provides a framework for understanding
how the conditions present while
encoding information relate to memory
and recall of that information.[1] Memory
researchers Thomson and Tulving
suggest that recall is most effective
when the conditions at the time of
encoding match the conditions at the
time of retrieval. These conditions 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.

Consider the debate on whether taking

an exam in the same classroom in which
the material for the exam was encoded
positively correlates with performance on
said exam. The encoding specificity
principle suggests that it does. In this
example, the context refers to the
physical location in which the exam
takes place. Another example could
correspond to the state an individual is in
at the time of encoding; studies show
that a person who is intoxicated at the
time of encoding has a better time
retrieving information if later the person
is also intoxicated.[2] State can also refer
to the emotional state the individual is in
at the time of encoding and at the time of
retrieval; if these states match, the
individual is more likely to recall the
encoded information.

In a laboratory study, a subject presented

with an unrelated word pair is able to
recall a target word with much more
accuracy when prompted with the
unrelated word it was matched with at
the time of encoding, than if presented
with a semantically related word that
was not available during the time of
encoding.[3] During a recall task, people
benefit equally from a weakly related cue
word as from a strongly related cue word,
provided the weakly related word was
present at encoding.[4]

Specific results
Role of semantics

Semantics does not always play a role in

encoding specificity; memory, rather,
depends upon the context at encoding
and retrieval.[3] Early research has shown
that semantically related cues should be
effective in retrieving a word provided the
semantic cue was encoded along with
the target word. If the semantically
related word is not present at the time of
encoding, it will not be efficient at cuing
recall for the target word.[5]

Regardless of semantic relatedness of

the paired words, participants more
effectively recalled target words that had
been primed when prompted for recall.[1]
Many of the following experiments
employed a method modeled off of
Thomson and Tulving's. All, however, had
slight variations which allowed the
researchers to discover their own
individual findings. The following table
shows the importance of priming
through word pairs to achieve enhanced
recall of words encoded together.[6]
Paired-associate list and four types of
prompters
1 2
StimulusResponse 3
(.01-.08) (.09-.21)
velvet
TIME blue grey (.1) gre
(.03)
print comic
SHOE book rea
(.02) (.15)
cushion uph
TOP chair leg (.02)
(.09) (.3
pole extension com
WENT telephone
(.04) (.17) (.33
child
TILE girl cute (.18) fem
(.03)

Modeled after Table 1 Bahrick[6] (1970)

Immediate environment

Multiple studies have shown a

dependence on context of one's
environment as an aid to recall specific
items and events.

Physical environment

The location and environment in which

you learn something readily affects how
you can freely recall it.[7] Lists of words
were presented to participants both
underwater and on the beach. When
recall was tested in the environment of
original encoding, free recall was far
superior to recall when tested in an
altered environment.[8] Memory tested
through recognition, however, was not
affected. This phenomenon is explained
by what is termed the outshining
hypothesis: context can be a useful cue
for memory but only when it is needed.
One will only turn to context as a cue
when better cues are unavailable. In
recognition tests, cues other than the
immediate encoding context and
environment are superior, whereas in
free-recall tests, the immediate
environment serves as the only cue to
trigger memory.[8]

Auditory environment
The level and kind of noise in any given
encoding environment will affect the
ability to recall the information encoded
in a different auditory environment.[9]
Students receive higher scores on tests
when they study for and take
examinations in environments that have
similar auditory background distractions,
thus proving that the context-
dependency effect applies to meaningful
scenarios in addition to unrelated word
lists. While a typical college student's
study environment often includes
background noise, test environments are
typically quieter.[9] In line with the
encoding specificity principle, this
mismatch at encoding and retrieval is
detrimental to test performance.[10]
Students who study with background
noise recall just as much information as
students studying in silence, provided
they are tested in the same type of
environment as which the information
was encoded.[9]

Voluntary retrieval of
autobiographical memory

Autobiographical memories are more

accessible when the language at
encoding and recall match.[11]
Researchers conducted interviews with
Russian and English speaking bilingual
students in both languages and asked
participants to retrieve the first memory
that comes to mind when hearing a
generic word in either language. They
found that when presented with Russian-
language cues, participants recalled
memories that occurred in a Russian-
speaking environment and when
presented with English-language cues,
they easily recalled memories from
English-speaking contexts.[11] This is first
because the cue words may have been
spoken during the original event that the
participant was remembering; hearing
the word at encoding and again at
retrieval may have been a sufficient cue
to bring the memory to mind. Second,
this phenomenon may be due to the
general language-created ambiance of
the situation in which participants were
tested rather than the specific
associations to individual cue words.[11]

Diagnosis of disease

Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD)

are unable to effectively process the
semantic relationship between two
words at encoding to assist in the
retrieval process.[12] The general
population benefits equally from a
weakly related cue word as from a
strongly related cue word during a recall
task, provided the weakly related word
was present at encoding. Patients with
AD, however, were unable to benefit from
the weakly related cue even if it was
present at both encoding and retrieval.[12]
Instead of relying upon semantic
encoding, those with AD presented their
most dominant associations to the cue
words during recall test. This explains
why all AD patients performed well when
two strong words were matched together
but very poorly when a strong and weak
pairs were presented during recall(10).
Deficits in episodic memory are now
widely accepted as a characteristic
symptom of Alzheimer's disease.[4]

Alcohol
Information encoded and stored while
intoxicated is retrieved more effectively
when later recall tests are performed
while intoxicated as compared to recall
while sober.[2] This finding is a variation
of the context-dependency effect of the
encoding specificity principle and is
much more apparent with low-imagery
words than high-imagery words. Both
high and low imagery words, however,
are less likely to be recalled while
intoxicated due to the inherent nature of
intoxication.[2]

Advertising
The emotional nature of advertisements
affects the rate of recall for the
advertised product.[13] 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.[13] 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[14]
from Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964
presidential campaign is inherently
emotional in nature and therefore very
easily remembered. If this advertisement
re viewed and encoded in an episodic
mode, due to its emotional nature, it
would be easily recalled because of the
mode of memory during the encoding
process. This advertisement is a lasting
example of emotional advertisements
being easily recalled: it aired only once
on September 7, 1964 yet is one of the
most remembered and famous
campaign advertisements to date.
Criticism
James S. Nairne of Purdue University is
the primary opponent of Thomson and
Tulving's encoding specificity
principle.[10] He argues that the encoding-
retrieval match is correlational rather
than causal and states that many
cognitive psychologists consider the
principle to be "sacrosanct".[15] 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.[15] He characterizes memory
as an "active process of
discrimination"[15] 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.[15]

References
1. Tulving, Endel; Donald Thomson (1973).
"Encoding specificity and retrieval
processes in episodic memory".
Psychological Review. 80 (5): 352–373.
doi:10.1037/h0020071 .
2. Weingartner, Herbert; Wolansa Adefras;
James E. Eich; Dennis L. Murphy (1976).
"Encoding-imagery specificity in alcohol
state-dependent learning". Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory. 2 (1): 83–87.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.2.1.83 .
3. Hannon, Brenda; Fergus Craik (2001).
"Encoding specificity revisited: The role of
semantics". Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 55 (3): 231–
243. doi:10.1037/h0087369 .
4. Adam, S.; M. Van der Linden; A Ivanoiu;
A.-C. Juillerat; S. Bechet; E. Salmon
(2007). "Optimization of encoding
specificity for the diagnosis of early AD:
The RI-48 task". Journal of Clinical and
Experimental neuropsychology. 29 (5):
477–487.
doi:10.1080/13803390600775339 .
5. Reder, Lynne; John Anderson; Robert
Bjork (1974). "A semantic interpretation of
encoding specificity". Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 102 (4): 648–
656. doi:10.1037/h0036115 .
6. Bahrick, Harry (1970). "Two-phase
model for prompted recall". Psychological
Review. 77 (3): 215–222.
doi:10.1037/h0029099 .
7. Godden, D.R.; A.D. Baddely (1975).
"Context-Dependent Memory in Two
Natural Environments: On Land and
Underwater". The British Journal of
Psychology. 66: 325–331.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x .
8. Godden, Duncan; Alan Baddely (1980).
"When Does Context Influence
Recognition Memory?". The British Journal
of Psychology. 71: 99–104.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb02735.x .
9. Grant, Harry; Lane C. Bredahl; John Clay;
Jennifer Ferrie; Jane Groves; Timothy
McDorman; Veronica Dark (1998).
"Context-dependent memory for
meaningful material: Information for
students". Applied Cognitive Psychology.
12: 617–623. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-
0720(1998120)12:6<617::aid-
acp542>3.0.co;2-5 .
10. Robinson-Riegler, Bridget (2008).
Cognitive Psychology: Applying the
Science of the mind. Boston, MA: Pearson
Publishing. pp. 246–248. ISBN 0-205-
03364-4.
11. Marian, Viorica; Ulric Neisser (2000).
"Language Dependent recall of
autobiographical memories". Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 129 (3): 361–
368. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.361 .
12. Granholm, Eric; Nelson Butters (1988).
"Associative encoding and retrieval in
Alzheimer's and Huntington's Disease".
Brain and Cognition. 7: 335–347.
doi:10.1016/0278-2626(88)90007-3 .
13. Friestad, Marian; Esther Thorson
(1993). "Remembering ads: the effects of
encoding strategies, retrieval cues and
emotional response". Journal of
Consumer Psychology. 2 (1): 1–23.
doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80072-1 .
14. Museum of the Moving Image.
"Daisy" . The Living Room Candidate.
Archived from the original on 26 April
2014. Retrieved 18 November 2011.
15. Nairne, James S. (2002). "The myth of
the encoding-retrieval match". Memory. 10
(5/6): 389–395.
doi:10.1080/09658210244000216 .
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Encoding_specificity_principle&oldid=77451
5596"

Last edited 2 years ago by an anon…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.