Age Differences in Encoding Specificity
J. Thomas Puglisi, D. C. Park, Anderson D. Smith, William N. Dudley
Abstract
Open-access reader
J. Thomas Puglisi, D. C. Park, Anderson D. Smith, William N. Dudley
Abstract
Open-access reader
In two experiments (one under full attention, the other under divided attention), old and young adults were presented with a cued recall task in an encoding specificity paradigm. Targets and associated cues were either pictures or matched words, and there was either a strong or weak semantic relationship between targets and cues. Additionally, cues presented at recall were either the same as or different from those presented at encoding, resulting in four encoding cue--retrieval cue combinations: (a) strong encoding cue and (same) strong retrieval cue; (b) weak encoding cue and (same) weak retrieval cue; (c) weak encoding cue and (different) strong retrieval cue; (d) strong encoding cue and (different) weak retrieval cue. For the most part, the results revealed strong encoding specificity effects for both age groups, as both old and young participants recalled more when the same cues were presented at encoding and retrieval than when different cues were presented. However, when elderly participants received verbal cues under divided attention conditions, evidence for general encoding rather than encoding specificity occurred. Results are discussed in terms of both the encoding specificity principle as well as a more process-oriented interpretation.
OpenAlex reports 60 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In two experiments (one under full attention, the other under divided attention), old and young adults were presented with a cued recall task in an encoding specificity paradigm. Targets and associated cues were either pictures or matched words, and there was either a strong or weak semantic relationship between targets and cues. Additionally, cues presented at recall were either the same as or different from those presented at encoding, resulting in four encoding cue--retrieval cue combinations: (a) strong encoding cue and (same) strong retrieval cue; (b) weak encoding cue and (same) weak retrieval cue; (c) weak encoding cue and (different) strong retrieval cue; (d) strong encoding cue and (different) weak retrieval cue. For the most part, the results revealed strong encoding specificity effects for both age groups, as both old and young participants recalled more when the same cues were presented at encoding and retrieval than when different cues were presented. However, when elderly participants received verbal cues under divided attention conditions, evidence for general encoding rather than encoding specificity occurred. Results are discussed in terms of both the encoding specificity principle as well as a more process-oriented interpretation.
Key concepts: Encoding specificity principle, Encoding (memory), Cue-dependent forgetting, Recall, Psychology, Context-dependent memory, Task (project management), Cognitive psychology