Figure 619

Mean probabilities of remember and know responses on a recognition test as a function of whether attention at learning was divided or undivided. Adapted from Gardiner and Parkin (1990).


Jones (e.g., 1982) argued that there are two routes to recall:

• The direct route, in which the cue permits direct accessing of the to-be-remembered information.

• The indirect route, in which the cue leads to recall via the making of inferences and the generation of possible responses.

Jones (1982) showed his participants a list of apparently unrelated cue-target word pairs (e.g., "regalBEER"), followed by a test of cued recall (e.g., "regal-?"). Some participants were told after learning that reversing the letters of each cue word would produce a new word related to the target word (e.g., "regal" turns into "lager", which in turn suggests "BEER"). Participants who were told about reversing the letters of the cue word recalled more than twice as many words as uninformed participants. According to Jones ( 1982), uninformed participants made use only of the direct route, whereas informed participants used the direct and indirect routes, and so recalled more words.

We can relate Jones' two recall routes to two of the theories discussed earlier. According to the encoding specificity principle, recall is assumed to occur via the direct route. In contrast, the indirect route closely resembles the recall process as described by two-process theorists.


It has been proposed by several theorists (e.g., Gardiner & Java, 1993) that there are two ways in which recognition memory can occur. Some indication of what may be involved can be gleaned from the following anecdote. Several years ago, the first author walked past a man in Wimbledon, and felt immediately that he recognised him. However, he was puzzled because it was hard to think of the situation in which he had seen the man previously. After a fair amount of thought about it (this is the kind of thing academic psychologists think about!), he realised the man was a ticket-office clerk at Wimbledon railway station, and this greatly strengthened his conviction that the initial feeling of recognition was correct. Thus, recognition can be based either on familiarity or on remembering relevant contextual information.

Gardiner and Java (1993) distinguished between these two forms of recognition memory. Participants were presented with a list of words followed by a recognition memory test. For each word recognised, participants had to make a "know" or a "remember" response: know responses were made when there were only feelings of familiarity, whereas remember responses were made when retrieval was accompanied by conscious recollection. Gardiner and Java (1993) argued that remember and know responses reflected output from different memory systems.

In order to provide strong evidence for the reality of the know/remember distinction, we need to find experimental manipulations that affect remember responses but not know responses, and vice versa. This has been done. Gardiner and Parkin (1990) used two learning conditions: (1) attention was devoted only to the list to be remembered (undivided attention); (2) attention had to be divided between the list and another task (divided attention). The attentional manipulation affected only the remember responses (see Figure 6.19).

Rajaram (1993) presented a word below the conscious threshold to participants immediately prior to each test word that was presented for recognition memory. This word was either the same as the test word or different. The relationship between the subliminal word (masked prime) and the test word made a difference to know responses but not to remember responses (see Figure 6.20).


The distinction between remembering and knowing may be an important one, and it forms the basis of the distinction between episodic memory and semantic memory (see Chapter 7). However, there are doubts about the value of the introspective technique just described. Donaldson (1996) argued that the findings can be explained by assuming simply that individuals require more evidence to produce a "remember" response

Stop Anxiety Attacks

Stop Anxiety Attacks

Here's How You Could End Anxiety and Panic Attacks For Good Prevent Anxiety in Your Golden Years Without Harmful Prescription Drugs. If You Give Me 15 minutes, I Will Show You a Breakthrough That Will Change The Way You Think About Anxiety and Panic Attacks Forever! If you are still suffering because your doctor can't help you, here's some great news...!

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment