Skip to main content
Log in

The contextualization of input and output events in memory

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Several observations from everyday life suggest that people are deficient in monitoring their own actions, often forgetting that they have already performed a planned act, or experiencing doubt as to whether they have done so. These observations appear inconsistent with the many laboratory studies that indicate that people are quite efficient in monitoring their own actions. Towards the resolution of this discrepancy we proposed that: (a) output monitoring in real life often requires the retrieval of a specific, contextually framed episode rather than mere familiarity with an event, and (b) output events are less strongly integrated with their environmental contexts than input events are. Therefore, despite the output advantage that is frequently reported in occurrence memory, context memory should be relatively less efficient for output than for input events. This hypothesis received some support in Experiment 1, in which generated verbal responses were remembered better than read responses, but the difference was significantly smaller for context than for occurrence memory. Experiment 2 employed a task simulating a two-person interaction. While occurrence memory was superior for self-performed tasks to that for other-performed tasks, context memory was in fact inferior for the former tasks. These results were seen to suggest that self-initiated actions tend to undergo a weaker contextual integration than events that originate from a source external to the person.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R. E. (1984). Did I do it or did I only imagine doing it?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 594–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backman, L., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1984). Aging effects in free recall: An exception to the rule.Human Learning, 3, 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backman, L., Nilsson, L.-G., & Chalom, D. (1986). New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events.Memory & Cognition, 14, 339–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Domains of recollection.Psychological Review, 89, 708–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory.American Psychologist, 44, 1185–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begg, I., Snider, A., Foley, F., & Goddard, R. (1989). The generation effect is no artifact: Generating makes words distinctive.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 977–989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F. (1988). Memory for randomly sampled autobiographical events. In U. Neisser, & E. Winograd (Eds.),Remembering reconsidered: Ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory (pp. 21–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L. (1981). On the generality of some memory laws.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L. (1983). The effect of encoding variables on the free recall of words and action events.Memory & Cognition, 11, 575–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. M. (1989). On the making of episodes. In H. L. Roediger, III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 43–57). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelkamp, J. (1986). Nouns and verbs in paired-associate learning: Instructional effects.Psychological Research, 48, 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelkamp, J. (1990). Memory of action events: Some implications for memory theory and for imagery. In C. Cornoldi & M. McDaniel (Eds.),Imagery and cognition. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1984). Motor programme information as a separable memory unit.Psychological Research, 46, 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., & Denis, M. (1989). Paired associate learning of action verbs with visual- or motor-imaginal encoding instructions.Psychological Research, 50, 257–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, J. M., Passmore, C., Herriot, P., & Klee, H. (1977). Memory for remembered events: Effects of response mode and response-produced feedback.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helstrup, T. (1986). Separate memory laws for recall of performed acts?Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 27, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helstrup, T. (1987). One, two, or three memories? A problem-solving approach to memory for performed acts.Acta Psychologica, 66, 37–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helstrup, T. (1989). Loci for act recall: Contextual influence on the processing of action events.Psychological Research, 51, 168–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshman, E., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). The generation effect: Support for a two-factor theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 484–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: an experimental phenomenological approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 390–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanwisher, N. G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation.Cognition, 27, 117–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kausler, D. H., & Hakami, M. K. (1983). Memory for activities: Adult age differences and intentionality.Developmental Psychology, 19, 889–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kausler, D. H., Mein, D. M., & Overcast, T. D. (1975). Item recognition following a multiple item study for young and middle-aged adults.Experimental Aging Research, 71, 243–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., & Ben-Zur, H. (1988). Remembering that I did it: Processes and deficits in output monitoring. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 1 (pp. 203–208). Chichester: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H., & Sheffer, D. (1988). Telling the same story twice: Output monitoring and age.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951).Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review, 87, 252–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormak, P. D. (1984). Temporal coding by young and elderly adults in a list-differentiation setting.Bulletin of The Psychonomic Society, 22, 401–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Waddill, P. J., & Einstein, G. O. (1988). A contextual account of the generation effect: A three-factor theory.Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 521–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. (1978). Memory: What are the important questions? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory (pp. 3–24). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. (1988). Time present and time past. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 2 (pp. 545–560). Chichester: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, L.-G., & Cohen, R. L. (1988). Enrichment and generation in the recall of enacted and non-enacted instructions, In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 1 (pp. 427–432). Chichester: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, J. L. (1989). The biology of obsessions and compulsions.Scientific American, 260, 63–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1983). Lapses of attention in everyday life. In W. Parasuraman, D. Davis, & J. Beatty (Eds.),Aspects of consciousness, Vol. 1 (pp. 515–549). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, G. F. (1985).Obsessional experience and compulsive behavior: A cognitive-structural approach. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, K. J., Frost, R. O., & Otto, R. (1983). Cognitive deficits in compulsive checkers: an exploratory study.Behavior Research Therapy, 21, 357–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slamecka, N. J., & Katsaib, K. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal.Journal of Memory and Language, 26,589–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?American Psychologist, 40, 385–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, H. D., & Engelkamp, J. (1989). Does motor encoding enhance relational information?Psychological Research, 51, 158–167.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H. & Druch, A. The contextualization of input and output events in memory. Psychol. Res 53, 260–270 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00941396

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00941396

Keywords

Navigation