7/23/2019 Prctica 2.Rappold.hashtroudi.1991
1/12
Journal of Experimenta l Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognit ion
1991, Vol. 17, No. I , 103 -114
Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
D278-7393/91/S3.OO
Does Organization Improve Priming?
Virginia A. Rappold and Shahin Hashtroudi
George Washington Univers i ty
In five experiments, the effects of organization on implicit memory or priming tests were
compared with its effects on the explicit memory tests of free and cued recall. Organization was
manipulated by varying list structure (blocked vs. random presentation of categorized items) and
by instructions. The results showed that organization had parallel effects on the category-
production priming test and free- and cued-recall tests; performance was enhanced by organiza-
tion on both types of
tests.
It was also dem onstrated tha t the effect of organization on priming
was limited to the category-production test and was not obtained with the word-identification
priming test. These results suggest that performance on implicit and explicit memory tests is
similarly affected by experimental manipulations when both types of tests rely on conceptually
driven processing. In addition, performance on two implicit tests is dissociated when one test
relies on conceptually driven processing and the other on data-driven processing.
Recent interest in studying the relations between explicit
{e.g., recall and recognition) and implicit (e.g., priming) mem -
ory tests has been motivated by the idea that memory is not
a single unified system but rather consists of several inde-
pendent forms. These forms may be differentially affected by
certain experimental man ipulations and by mem ory disorders
such as amnesia (Cohen Squire, 1980;Tulving, 1983, 1985;
Warrington
W eiskrantz, 1982). Although a few studies have
reported parallel effects of certain experim ental man ipulation s
on imp licit and explicit tests (Blaxton, 1989; Graf
Schacter,
1985;
Jacoby, 1983a; Jacoby & Dallas, 1981 ; Roediger &
Blaxton, 1987b; Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989), the
majority of studies have focused on de mo nstrating differences
rather than similarities between the two types of tests. In
addition, most theoretical accounts of the relations between
implicit and explicit tests have been formulated primarily to
explain the differences between the two types of
tests
(Cohen
& Squire, 1980; Graf & Ma ndler, 1984; Tulving, 1983; see
Schacter, 1987 and Richardson-K lavehn & Bjork, 1988, for
reviews). The purpose of the present experiments was to
explore the similarities as well as the differences between
implicit and explicit tests in their sensitivity to organizational
manipulations.
One recent theo retical framework that suggests certain sim-
ilarities between implicit and explicit tests is the transfer-
appropriate processing framework that emphasizes the dis-
tinction between data-driven and conceptually driven pro-
cesses (Jacoby, 1983b; Roediger Blaxton, 1987b; Roediger,
This research was supported by a Biomedical Research Support
Gran t from th e George Washington University to Shahin Hashtroudi.
We thank Teresa Blaxton, Roddy R oediger, Betsy Parker, Sharon
Mutter, and especially Barbara Schwartz and Sue Ferguson for their
valuable comments on this article. We also thank PeterGraf,Colin
MacLeod, and Daniel Schacter for their helpful suggestions for revi-
sion. We are grateful to Carol Reisen for her help in analyzing the
data and to Sheri Denm ark for her help in testing the subjects.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Shahin Hashtroudi, Department of Psychology, George Washington
University, Washington, D C 20052.
We ldon, & Challis, 1989; see also Johnso n, 1983). According
to this framework, both implicit and explicit memory tests
involve a mixture of data-driven and conceptually driven
processes. Data-driven processes are guided in large part by
the physical features of information, whereas conceptually
driven processes are self-initiated activities that are guided by
subjects' conceptual knowledge and the experimental context.
Typically, implicit tests rely more on data-driven processing,
whereas explicit tests depend on conceptually driven process-
ing. However, the data-driven versus conceptually driven
distinction does not necessarily parallel the implicit/explicit
distinction, because implicit tests may be conceptually driven
and explicit tests may be data driven. Consequently, depend-
ing on the particular tests involved, performance on implicit
tests may be similar to or different from performance on
explicit tests. If one selects a conceptually driven im plicit test
and compares it with a conceptually driven explicit test, then
performance on these tests would be similarly affected by
experimental manipulations. In addition, dissociations in per-
formance between two implicit or two explicit tests may be
observed if one of the tests is conceptually driven and the
other is data driven.
Consistent with these assumptions, Blaxton (1989) dem-
onstrated that generating a word to a cue (a conceptually
driven manipulation) improved performance on the explicit
free-recall and semantic cued-recall tests as well as on a test
of general knowledge, a conceptually driven implicit memory
or priming test. In addition, generation did not improve
performance on a data-driven priming test (word-fragment
completion). Similarly, Srinivas and Roediger (1990) showed
that generation and levels of processing (both conceptually
driven m anipulations) enhanced performance on the concep-
tually driven category-production test but not on the data-
driven word-fragment completion test.
The present experiments were designed to further demon-
strate similarities between implicit and explicit tests and dif-
ferences between two implicit tests by varying organization.
Organization refers to the process of grouping and interrelat-
ing items on the basis of comm on properties. The manipula-
tion of organization seems to be an ideal method for varying
conceptually driven processing because organizing items
103
7/23/2019 Prctica 2.Rappold.hashtroudi.1991
2/12
104 VIRGINIA A. RAPPOLD AND SHAHIN HASHTROUDI
clearly requires self-initiated activities that are guided by
subjects' conceptual knowledge. Typically, categorized or as-
sociatively related word lists are used to induce organization
because the inherent structure of these lists emphasizes the
processing of common features oftheitems (Bousfield, 1953;
Jenkins, M ink, & Russell, 1958). Thus, in a free-recall test, if
a list consists of several instances of taxonomic categories
(e.g., animals, occupations), it will be remembered better than
a list of unrelated words (Hunt & Einstein, 1981). Any vari-
able that promotes the formation of interitem relationships
will enhance recall. For example, blocked presentation of list
items, in which instances of a category are presented adja-
cently at study, increases recall compared with random pre-
sentation (Bower, Clark, Lesgold. & Winzenz, 1969; Cofer,
Bruce.
Reicher, 1966;Dallett. 1964; Ho rton & Cofer, 1975).
It has been well established that categorical organization is
an important d eterminan t of performance on explicit m emory
tests such as free and cued recall (Bousfield, 1953 ; Bower et
al.,
1969; Cofer et a l, 1966; Dallett, 1964; see Tulving &
Donaldson, 1972). However, there have been no studies that
have examined the effects of categorical organization on
implicit m emo ry tests. We compa red th e effects of categorical
organization on the explicit tests of free and cued recall to its
effects on the implicit test of category production. In the
category-production test, after studying a list of items belong-
ing to several taxonomic categories, subjects are presented
with category titles and are asked to produc e the first instances
of the category that come to mind. Some of the category titles
at test refer to instances presented at study (studied categories)
and others do not (unstudied categories). Priming is deter-
mined by comparing the probability of producing instances
from the studied categories to the probability of producing
instances from the unstudied categories(Graf,Shimamura, &
Squire, 1985; Kihlstrom, 1980; Srinivas & Roedigcr, 1990).
Category production is considered an implicit test because
subjects are not asked to deliberately remember category
instances from the study list, but they are simply asked to
produce instances that come to mind.
Category production was selected because it is similar to
implicit memory or priming tests as well as to explicit tests.
On the one hand, category production resembles priming tests
such as word identification, word-stem completion, and par-
tial-word identification in that it is not disrupted by amnesia
(Gardner, Boiler, Moreines, Butters,
1973;
Graf et al., 1985;
Hamann, 1989; Kihlstrom, 1980). On the other hand, cate-
gory production resembles free and cued recall because per-
formance on this test requires conceptual knowledge of tax-
onomic categories. In addition, this test has been shown to
benefit from conceptually driven manipulations such as gen-
eration and levels of processing, and is not affected by data-
driven manipulations such as changes in modality of presen-
tation between study and test (Srinivas & Roediger, 1990).
To the extent that the category-production test involves con-
ceptually driven processing, it should be improved by condi-
tions that encourage organization. Therefore, we expected
parallel effects of organization on category production and
free and cued recall.
We also compared the efTect of organization on category
production with its effect on the word-identification priming
test. Word identification has been shown to be sensitive to
changes in perceptual aspects of
items
and, as such, is consid-
ered to be a data-driven test (Jacoby, 19 83b; Jacoby
Dallas,
1981;
Roedigcr & Blaxton, 1987b; Roedigcr, Wcldon, &
Challis, 1989). In addition, this test is not affected by manip-
ulations that vary conceptually driven processing such as
levels of processing manipulations (Jacoby & Dallas, 1981).
Thus,
we expected that word identification would not be
affected by organization, and that performance on this test
would be dissociated from performance on the category-
production test.
Five experiments were conducted to examine the effects of
organization on implicit and explicit tests. In Experiment 1,
we studied the effects of organization on category production
and free a nd cued recall by varying the me thod of presentation
of the items. Study words from a category were presented
either in a blocked order to encourage organization or in a
random order. In Experiment 2. we examined the generality
ofthe effect of organization on category production and free
and cued recall by using both high- and low-frequency in-
stances of categories. In Experiment 3, we manipulated or-
ganization by giving organizational instructions rather than
by varying list structure. In Experiment 4, the time course of
forgetting in category production was compared with that of
free and cued recall. Finally, in Experiment 5, the effect of
method of presentation (blocked vs. random) on category
production was compared with its effect on word identifica-
tion.
Experiment 1
The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effects
of organization on category production and free and cued
recall. One criterion proposed for classifying tests as data- or
conceptually driven is that data-driven tests should not be
affected by manipulations that vary elaborative or concep-
tually driven processing such as organization, whereas con-
ceptually driven tests should benefit from these ma nipulations
(Hashtrou di, Ferguson, Rappold, & Chrosniak, 1988; Roedi-
ger & Blaxton, 1987a, 1987b; Roediger, Weldon, & Challis,
1989). To exam ine wh ether category prod uction benefits from
conceptually driven processing, we used two study conditions
in which organization was varied by changing list structure
(Bower et al., 1969; Cofer et al., 1966). In the first condition,
subjects were presented with categorically related words (e.g.,
eagle, falcon, sparrow) from several different categories (e.g.,
animals, fruits) in a blocked order for study. In the second
condition, the same categorically related words were presented
in a random order. It was expected that the list structure in
the blocked condition would encourage subjects to interrelate
the items actively and to form a unitized memory represen-
tation.
The blocked/random organizational manipulation has
been used widely in free and cued recall, and has been shown
to be effective in improving performance on these explicit
memory tests (e.g., Bower el al., 1969; Cofer et al., 1966;
Dallett, 1964; Ho rton & Cofer, 1975). As with the previous
studies, we expected that blocked presentation would result
in higher recall than random presentation. The comparison
of the effect of method of presentation (blocked vs. random)
7/23/2019 Prctica 2.Rappold.hashtroudi.1991
3/12
PRIMING AND ORGANIZATION
105
on category production with free- and cued-rccall tests would
indicate whether category production also benefits from or-
ganization.
Method
Subjects.
The subjects were 96 undergraduates from George
Washington University who received course credit for their partici-
pation. Subjects were all tested individually in this experiment and
in all the other experiments reported in this article.
Design and materials.
The design was a 2 x 3 factorial with
method of presentation (blocked and random) and type of test
(category production, free recall, and cued recall) as between-subjects
variables. Sixteen subjects were tested in each condition.
The materials were selected from the Battig and Montague (1969)
norms in accordance with the procedures described in Graf et al.
(1985). From each of the 12 categories (a sport, a fruit, a piece of
furniture, a kitchen utensil, a bird, a color, a four-footed anim al, an
article of
clothing,
a tree, a musical instrument, a part of the human
body, a vegetable), six comm on insta nces
(e.g.,
softball, skiing, boxing,
volleyball, polo, hunting) were selected. These items were not ranked
among the 10 most frequent instances, but each item was listed by at
least 10 subjects in the sample of
400
subjects used in the Battig and
Montague norm ative study. The average rank of the selected instances
was 23.30 (range: 11-48).
Six of the
12
categories were assigned to one list and six to another,
resulting in two lists of 36 items (6 categories of 6 items each).
Subjects heard one of the lists (study list) during the learning phase;
the other list served as a new list at test. Across subjects, each list
served equally often as a study list and as a new list. The two lists
were matched in category potency (Battig & Montague, 1969), that
is,in the num ber of instances produced by subjects in 30
s
for a given
category (List 1,
M
= 8.60; List
2,M =
7.80) and in the average rank
of the items {List 1,
M=
23.08; List 2,
M =
23.42).
Procedure.
At acquisition, a list of36items was presented audi-
torily at a rate of3s per item . Half ofthesubjects heard the instances
of the categories in a random order with the restriction that no 2
items from the same category occurred adjacently. The other half
of
the subjects heard the instances in a blocked order with all the items
from one category occurring adjacently. Subjects were instructed to
learn the list for a later memory test, but the type of test was not
specified.
Immediately after the study list, subjects were given one of the
three different types of tests. In the category-production condition,
subjects were given the 12 category titles one at a time in a random
order. They were asked to produce eight instances for each category
title. Eight instances were required to increase the likelihood that
subjects produce instances other than the most common ones (Graf
et al., 1985). Six of the 12 categories were always from the study list,
and the other 6 were from the list that had not been presented to that
subject (new list). Subjects were instructed to say eight things that
belong to that category as fast as possible.
1
' However, no time limit
was specified. Subjects rarely had difficulty generating eight instan ces.
To familiarize the subjects with the procedure, they were given a
sample category title (a relative) and three examples of that title
(father, brother, and sister) with instructions to produce five more
instances of that category as fast as they could (Graf
et
al., 1985).
In the free-recall condition, subjects were instructed to write down
as many words as they could remember from the study list. They
were given 3 min for recall but most subjects finished faster.
The cued-recall condition differed from the category-production
condition only with respect to instructions. Subjects were given the
12 category titles one at a time, and were told that some of the
categories would refer to words from the study list and others would
not. They were instructed to use the category names as cues to help
recall the words from the study list. Again no time limit
was
specified.
Results andDiscussion
Table
1
shows the p roportion s of responses in the three test
conditions as a function of method of presentation. For the
category-production test, the proportion of category instances
produced from the new list not presented to the subject at
study provides a baseline score. The priming measure is the
difference between the proportion of category instances pro-
duced from the old (study) list and the proportion of instances
produced from the new list. The cued-recall mea sure was also
based on the difference between the proportion of instances
recalled from the study list and the proportion of instances
produced from the new list. However, because subjects very
rarely produced instances for the categories that were not
presented at study, correcting for these items did not change
the cued-recall score. Thus, only the proportion of instances
recalled from the study list (old items) is reported in the tables.
The significance level was set at .05 for all statistical tests
reported in this article. Throughout the article, we report
separate analyses for category production and free- and cued-
recall tests. Because of the scaling differences between cate-
gory-production and recall tests, we prefer the separate anal-
yses to overall analyses of variance (ANOVAs), with test type
as a variable. Nevertheless, to assess directly the effect of test
type, we also briefly report the interactions involving this
variable from the overall ANOVAs. It should be noted that,
in most cases, the results from the overall analyses were
consistent with those of the separate analyses.
Analyses of the category-production test showed that prim-
ing
was
significantly higher in the blocked than in the ra ndom
condition,F(1, 30) -
14.71,
MS
e
=0.008, although significant
priming occurred in both conditions (both fs > 1.75).Clearly,
priming was facilitated by organization.
Blocked presentation also resulted in higher performance
than random presentation in free recall, F(l, 30) = 12.59,
MS
e
= 0.009, and in cued recall, F(\, 30) = 8.73, MS, =
0.014. In addition, in agreement with the results of the sepa-
rate analyses, an overall 2 x 3 ANOVA with presentation
method and test type as variables showed no significant
interaction between these variables,F< 1, thereby suggesting
that organization had similar effects on the three tests.
One explanation for the similar effects of organization on
category production and recall is that category-production
performance is mediated by explicit retrieval. That
is,
subjects
in this condition do not simply attempt to produce the first
Table 1
Experiment
1:
Proportions
of
Responses
in Category
Production, FreeRecall,and Cued
Recall
as a
Function
of
Method of Presentation
Measure
Category production
Old
New
Priming
Free recall
Old
Cued recall
Old
Method
Blocked
.32
.09
.23
.41
.39
of presentation
Random
.20
.10
,10
.29
.27
7/23/2019 Prctica 2.Rappold.hashtroudi.1991
4/12
106
VIRGINIA A. RAPPOLD AND SHAHIN HASHTROUDI
items that come lo mind, but they deliberately retrieve the
study list at test and consciously recall the items from a given
category. To rule out this explanation, we examined the first
three items produced by subjects in this test. The results
showed that in category production only33%of the first three
items produced at test were on the study list. However, in free
recall 96% of the first three items recalled were on the study
list, and in cued recall 88% were on the study list. It appears
that subjects use different strategies in category production
than in free- and cued-recall tests. If subjects had been using
explicit retrieval strategies, then a large proportion of the first
few items produced at test would have been from the study
list.
It could also be argued that an explicit retrieval strategy
would not be used until a few categories were presented and
subjects caught on to the natu re of the test. If
this
were the
case,
the percentage of words produced from the study list
would increase from the beginning to the end of the test.
Thus, we compared the percentage of study w ords produced
for the first two (30%), the middle two (22%), and the last
two (26%) categories at test, for both blocked and random
presentations. An ANOVA on these data showed no main
effect of category position, F (2, 60) = 2.00,M S
e
0.023, and
no interaction of category position with method of presenta-
tion,F
7/23/2019 Prctica 2.Rappold.hashtroudi.1991
5/12
PRIMING AND ORGANIZATION
107
As in Experiment 1, stimulus m aterials were selected from the
Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Six high-frequency and six low-
frequency instances were selected from the 12 categories used in
Experiment 1. We did not use the three highest and the three lowest
frequency instances to avoid ceiling and floor effects. The lists were
composed of the next six highest and next six lowest instances. The
average rank for the instances was 7.90 (range: 4-15) for the high-
frequency instances and 27.97 (range: 16-45) for the low-frequency
instances.
The pool of
72
high-frequency instances was divided in to two lists
of
36
item s (six categories of
6
items
each).
Similarly, the pool of
low-
frequency items was divided in to two lists of 36 items consisting of
the same six categories as the high-frequency instances but with 6
low-frequency instances for each category. One of the two lists was
used as a study list and the other as a new list at test. Across subjects,
each list served equally often as the study list and the new list. The
two high-frequency lists were matched in the average rank of the
instances (List 1,
M
=8.52; List2,
M =
7.27). The two low-frequency
lists were also matched in the average rank of the instances (List 1,
M
= 27.82; List 2,
M
= 28.10). Category potency was the same as
Experiment 1.
Procedure.
At acquisition , subjects were instructed to try to learn
each word for a later memory test, but the type of test was not
specified.
At test, as in Experiment 1, subjects in the category-production
condition heard 12 randomly presented category titles one at a time
and were asked to produce eight instances for each category (Graf et
al., 1985). Six of the presented categories were from the study list,
and the other six were from the list that had not been presented to
that subject. In cued recall, subjects were given the same titles and
were asked to use these titles as cues to recall the words from the
study
list.
Other procedural
details
of category production, cued recall,
and free recall were the same as those in Experiment 1.
Results andDiscussion
The proportions of responses in the test conditions as a
function of presentation method and frequency of the cate-
gory instances are shown in Table 2. The priming and cued-
recall measures were derived in the same manner as in Ex-
periment 1.
Analyses of category production showed that blocked pre-
sentation led to higher priming than random presentation,
F{\, 44) = 7.65, A/5
e
= 0.010, although priming was signifi-
cant with both methods of presentation (both /s >
1.71).
In
addition, there was no significant difference in category-pro-
duction performance between high-frequency and low-fre-
quency instances of categories, F 1.71).
An examination of Table 2 suggests that the difference in
priming between blocked and random presentations was
slightly greater for low-frequency than for high-frequency
instances. How ever, analyses of the data showed no significant
interaction of method of presentation and instance frequency,
F{\, 44) = 1.00, MS
e
= 0.010. Organization seemed to have
similar effects on the priming of high-frequency and low-
frequency instances of categories.
As with category production, blocked presentation led to
higher performance than random presentation in free recall,
F(l , 44) - 9.51,MS, = 0.009, and in cued recall,F (U44) =
12.76, MS
t
= 0.017. However, unlike priming in category
produ ction, performance was higher with high-frequency than
with low-frequency instances in both free recall,
F(
1, 44) =
23.13,
M S
e
= 0.009, and cued-recall tests,F(\, 44) = 19.06,
MS
e
=0.017. There was no significant interaction of presen-
tation method and instance frequency in either of the recall
tests (both f s < 1).
An overall 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA with method of presentation,
instance frequency, and test type as variables confirmed the
results of the separate analyses. There was a significant inter-
action of instance frequency and test type,F(2,132) = 6.41,
MS
e
=0.012, indicating that free recall, F (l , 132) = 17.92,
MS
e
= 0.012, and cued recall, F(U 132) = 27.42, MS, =
0.012, were higher with high-frequency than with low-fre-
quency instan ces, but there was no significant difference
Table 2
Experime nt 2: Proportions of
Responses
in Category Production, Free Recall, and Cued
Recall as a F unction of Method of
Presentation
an d
Category
Instance
Frequency
Measure
Method of presentation
Blocked Random
Category production
High-frequency instances
Old
New
Priming
Low-frequency instances
Old
New
Priming
Free recall
High-frequency instances
Old
Low-frequency instances
Old
Cued recall
High-frequency instances
Old
Low-frequency instances
Old
57
36
21
28
6
22
.57
.42
.58
.42
.50
.34
.16
.20
.08
.12
47
34
.45
.28
7/23/2019 Prctica 2.Rappold.hashtroudi.1991
6/12
108
VIRGINIA A. RAPPOLD AND SHAHIN HASHTROUDI
between the two types of instances in category production, F
Top Related