The drawing effect: Evidence for costs and benefits using pure and mixed lists.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Memory & Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-22 DOI:10.3758/s13421-024-01551-6
Mark J Huff, Jacob M Namias, Peyton Poe
{"title":"The drawing effect: Evidence for costs and benefits using pure and mixed lists.","authors":"Mark J Huff, Jacob M Namias, Peyton Poe","doi":"10.3758/s13421-024-01551-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drawing a referent of a to-be-remembered word often results in better recognition and recall of this word relative to a control task in which the word is written, a pattern dubbed the drawing effect. Although this effect is not always found in pure lists, we report three experiments in which the drawing effect emerged in both pure- and mixed-lists on recognition and recall tests, though the effect was larger in mixed lists. Our experiments then compared drawing effects on memory between pure- and mixed-list contexts to determine whether the larger mixed-list drawing effect reflected a benefit to draw items, a cost to write items, or a combination. In delayed recognition and free-recall tests, a mixed-list benefit emerged for draw items in which memory for mixed-list draw items was greater than pure-list draw items. This mixed-list drawing benefit was accompanied by a mixed-list writing cost compared to pure-list write items, indicating that the mixed-list drawing effect does not operate cost-free. Our findings of a pure-list drawing effect are consistent with a memory strength account, however, the larger drawing effect in mixed lists suggest that participants may also deploy a distinctiveness heuristic to aid retrieval of drawn items.</p>","PeriodicalId":48398,"journal":{"name":"Memory & Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01551-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drawing a referent of a to-be-remembered word often results in better recognition and recall of this word relative to a control task in which the word is written, a pattern dubbed the drawing effect. Although this effect is not always found in pure lists, we report three experiments in which the drawing effect emerged in both pure- and mixed-lists on recognition and recall tests, though the effect was larger in mixed lists. Our experiments then compared drawing effects on memory between pure- and mixed-list contexts to determine whether the larger mixed-list drawing effect reflected a benefit to draw items, a cost to write items, or a combination. In delayed recognition and free-recall tests, a mixed-list benefit emerged for draw items in which memory for mixed-list draw items was greater than pure-list draw items. This mixed-list drawing benefit was accompanied by a mixed-list writing cost compared to pure-list write items, indicating that the mixed-list drawing effect does not operate cost-free. Our findings of a pure-list drawing effect are consistent with a memory strength account, however, the larger drawing effect in mixed lists suggest that participants may also deploy a distinctiveness heuristic to aid retrieval of drawn items.

抽签效应:使用纯列表和混合列表计算成本和收益的证据。
绘制一个待记单词的参照物,往往会使该单词的识别和回忆效果优于书写该单词的对照任务,这种模式被称为绘制效应。尽管这种效应并不总是出现在纯列表中,但我们报告了三项实验,在这些实验中,纯列表和混合列表在识别和回忆测试中都出现了绘图效应,尽管混合列表中的效应更大。然后,我们在实验中比较了纯列表和混合列表中绘画对记忆的影响,以确定混合列表中更大的绘画效应是反映了绘画项目的益处、书写项目的代价还是两者的结合。在延迟识别和自由回忆测试中,画图项目出现了混合列表的益处,即对混合列表画图项目的记忆强于纯列表画图项目。与纯列表书写项目相比,这种混合列表绘图的益处伴随着混合列表书写的成本,这表明混合列表绘图效应并不是无成本运作的。我们关于纯列表绘制效应的研究结果与记忆强度的解释是一致的,但是,混合列表中更大的绘制效应表明,被试也可能利用独特性启发式来帮助检索绘制项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Memory & Cognition
Memory & Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Memory & Cognition covers human memory and learning, conceptual processes, psycholinguistics, problem solving, thinking, decision making, and skilled performance, including relevant work in the areas of computer simulation, information processing, mathematical psychology, developmental psychology, and experimental social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信