Abstract
The present study examined the extent to which differences in strategic encoding and contextual retrieval account for the relation between individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and variation in episodic recall. Participants performed a continual distractor task under either incidental- or intentional-encoding conditions. High-WMC individuals outperformed low-WMC individuals across both encoding conditions and, notably, to a greater degree in the intentional-encoding condition. These results suggest that WMC differences in episodic recall are likely due to a combination of differences in both contextual-retrieval and strategic-encoding processes. These findings are consistent with prior work showing that high-WMC individuals are better at engaging in strategic-encoding processes during the presentation of items than are low-WMC individuals and are better at using contextual cues to focus the search on correct items during retrieval.
Article PDF
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.
Bailey, H., Dunlosky, J., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Why does working memory span predict complex cognition? Testing the strategy affordance hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1383–1390.
Cokely, E. T., Kelley, C. M., & Gilchrist, A. L. (2006). Sources of individual differences in working memory: Contributions of strategy to capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 991–997.
Dunlosky, J., & Kane, M. J. (2007). The contributions of strategy use to working memory span: A comparison of strategy assessment methods. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1227–1245.
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier.
Glenberg, A. M., Bradley, M. M., Stevenson, J. A., Kraus, T. A., Tkachuk, M. J., Gretz, A. L., et al. (1980). A two-process account of long-term serial position effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 355–369.
Glenberg, A. M., & Swanson, N. G. (1986). A temporal distinctiveness theory of recency and modality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 3–15.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 333–358.
Marshall, P. H., & Werder, P. R. (1972). The effects of the elimination of rehearsal on primacy and recency. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 649–653.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–372.
Turley-Ames, K. J., & Whitfield, M. M. (2003). Strategy training and working memory task performance. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 446–468.
Unsworth, N. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and episodic retrieval: Examining the dynamics of delayed and continuous distractor free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 1020–1034.
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114, 104–132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Unsworth, N., Spillers, G.J. Variation in working memory capacity and episodic recall: The contributions of strategic encoding and contextual retrieval. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 200–205 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.200
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.200