Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that common stimuli are stored in memory better than bizarre stimuli are. Subjects memorized a series of noun pairs embedded within 20 common or bizarre sentences. By using a between-list design, free and cued recall, and intentional-learning instructions, we were able to obtain a commonness effect (i.e., a recall advantage for the common sentences). Riefer and Rouder’s (1992) multinomial processing-tree model for measuring storage and retrieval was applied to the data, which revealed that the recall advantage for common sentences was due to storage and not retrieval processes. We propose a two-factor theory: that common items are stored better in memory, but that bizarre items are retrieved better from memory. This storage-retrieval explanation does a good job of accounting for a number of findings associated with the bizarreness effect.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Andreoff, G. R., &Yarmey, A. D. (1976). Bizarre imagery and associative learning: A confirmation.Perceptual & Motor Skills,43, 143–148.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1986). The statistical analysis of a model for storage and retrieval processes in human memory.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,39, 129–149.
Bradshaw, G. L., &Anderson, J. R. (1982). Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 165–177.
Bransford, J. D., &Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 717–726.
Brewer, W. F., &Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata for places.Cognitive Psychology,13, 207–230.
Collyer, S. C., Jonides, J., &Bevan, W. (1972). Images as memory aids: Is bizarreness helpful?American Journal of Psychology,85, 31–38.
Einstein, G. O., &McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Distinctiveness and the mnemonic benefit of bizarre imagery. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.),Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 78–102). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hu, X. (1994).Statistical inference program for multinomial binary tree models (Version 2.0) [Computer program]. Irvine: University of California.
Iaccino, J. F., &Sowa, S. J. (1989). Bizarre imagery in paired-associate learning: An effective mnemonic aid with mixed context, delayed testing, and self-paced conditions.Perceptual & Motor Skills,68, 307–316.
Kline, S., &Groninger, L. D. (1991). The imagery bizarreness effect as a function of sentence complexity and presentation time.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 25–27.
Kroll, N. E. A., Jaeger, G., &Dornfest, R. (1992). Metamemory for the bizarre.Journal of Mental Imagery,16, 173–190.
Kroll, N. E. A., Schepeler, E. M., &Angin, K. T. (1986). Bizarre imagery: The misremembered mnemonic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 42–53.
Kroll, N. E. A., &Tu, S.-F. (1988). The bizarre mnemonic.Psychological Research,50, 28–37.
Lang, V. A. (1995). Relative association, interactiveness, and the bizarre imagery effect.American Journal of Psychology,108, 13–35.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 54–65.
McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1989). Sentence complexity eliminates the mnemonic advantage of bizarre imagery.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 117–120.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., DeLosh, E. L., May, C. P., &Brady, P. (1995). The bizarreness effect: It’s not surprising, it’s complex.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 422–435.
Nicolas, S., &Marchal, A. (1996). Picture bizarreness effect and word association.Current Psychology of Cognition,15, 629–643.
O’Brien, E. J., &Wolford, C. R. (1982). Effects of delay in testing on retention of plausible versus bizarre mental images.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,8, 148–152.
Richman, C. L., Dunn, J., Kahl, G., Sadler, L., &Simmons, K. (1990). The bizarre sentence effect as a function of list length and complexity.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,28, 185–187.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes.Psychological Review,95, 318–339.
Riefer, D. M., &Rouder, J. N. (1992). A multinomial modeling analysis of the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery.Memory & Cognition,20, 601–611.
Robinson-Riegler, B., &McDaniel, M. A. (1994). Further constraints on the bizarreness effect: Elaboration at encoding.Memory & Cognition,22, 702–712.
Rouder, J. N., &Batchelder, W. H. (in press). Multinomial models for measuring storage and retrieval processes in paired-associate learning. In C. Dowling, F. Roberts, & P. Theuns (Eds.),Progress in mathematical psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Senter, R. J., &Hoffman, R. R. (1976). Bizarreness as a nonessential variable in mnemonic imagery: A confirmation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,7, 163–164.
Weir, D., &Richman, C. L. (1996). Subject-generated bizarreness: Imagery or semantic processing.American Journal of Psychology,109, 173–185.
Wollen, K. A., &Cox, S. D. (1981). The bizarreness effect in a multitrial intentional learning task.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 296–298.
Wollen, K. A., Weber, A., &Lowry, D. H. (1972). Bizarreness versus interaction of mental images as determinants of learning.Cognitive Psychology,3, 518–523.
Worthen, J. B., &Marshall, P. H. (1996). Intralist and extralist sources of distinctiveness and the bizarreness effect: The importance of contrast.American Journal of Psychology,109, 239–263.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9309667. The authors would like to thank Gil Einstein, Neal Kroll, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riefer, D.M., lamay, M.L. Memory for common and bizarre stimuli: A storage-retrieval analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5, 312–317 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212957
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212957