Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Supposethat you are askedto find the sum petitionsof the problem by severalintervening
o f 3 7+ 1 5 + 1 2 . A f t e r h a v i n g o b t a i n e d r h i s s u mproblems of the same form.
your are immediatelypresentedwith the same
This exampleof addition is the basisof the
problem. The type of processingthat you do analysisof the eflectof reperitionon memory
will differ drastically on the repeated pre- that is presentedin this paper. The task of
sentation. On the first encounter you un- memorizinga list of words can be comparedto
doubtedly went throu_eh the process of the task of solving a seriesof problems"The
addition to obtain the sum: on the second presentationof a word [or memory constitutes
encounter.the sum is readilyavailableand can a problem: the subject must find operarions
be _uivenwithout going back through the that will render that word memorable after
operationsof adding the numbers. lndeed. a some delay. For example. the subject mav
full repetition of the processingactivity may image the referent of the word in order to
be difficult, if not impossible,to accomplish enhancememorv. As with math problems.it is
without some delay. which is probably the unlikely that a repetitionof a word resultsin a
rationalefor the commonly prescribedroutine full repetitionof the processing.If one haslust
of checking an addition by adding the num- imaged their own dog in order to make the
bers in reverseorder rather than simply re- word "dog" more memorable.imagin_etheir
adding them in the same order. To make it dog a second time as a consequenceof the
possibleto repeatthe full processof addition, word being repeatedis unlikely to require a
it is probably sufficient to separatethe re- iull repetition of the processesthat were
necessaryfor the original imaging.In general.
it seemsthat one can retrievethe product of
The author is grateful to Lee Brooks and F. l. M. Craik
their prior memorizing activiry without fully
for comments and suggestionson an earlier draft oi this
repeatin,ethat memorizing activiry.
paper.This researchwas supported by Grant 4028 t from
The meansby which a solution to a problem
the National Research Council ol Canada. Address
is
obtained
will influencesubsequentrerention
repnnt requests to Larrv L. Jacoby. Deparrment oi
of the probl em and i ts sol uti on. Thi s cl ai m
P s y c h o l o g y .M c M a s t e r U n i v e r s i t y . H a m i l t o n . O n r a r i o .
Canada L8S 4Kl.
has been used in recommending"discovery"
649
ri' ft \31""]ll?)];.il'i
.oor,,*n,"ltt,
l l r i g h t s o i r c p r o d u c t r o n i n a n y . t' b r m r e s c r r e d .
650
LARRY L. JACOBY
R E T E N T I O N E F F E C T SO F S O L V I N G V S R E M E } I B E R I N C
Ex p rn ry rN r I
651
652
LARRY L. JACOBY
653
-ts
RC
85
=
f, 75
Irl
a6s
5
555
do5
s
rlt
Pss
L
25
IMMEOIATE
SPACED
ONCE
PRESENTED
654
LARRY L. JACOBY
655
656
LARRY L. JACOBY
70
J
60
oi
t*t*'
,i
q 50
(\
5 40
=
.24
fl
F<
ti 20
n-
to
20
40
o^rcE
PRESNTED
SPAC/IVG
F r c . 2 . P r o b a b i l i t y o f c u e d - r e c a l la s a f u n c t i o n o f
construction difficulty and spacing.
pr ior t o p re s e n ta ti o no f th e p ro b l e m (.12).
W it h t he e a s y p ro b l e ms . i n c o n tra st. the
pr obabil i tyo f b e i n gu n a b l eto s o l v ea p ro btem
when 40 items intervenedbetweenreadingthe
s olut iona n d p re s e n ta ti o n
o f th e p ro b l e m(.02)
was equa l to th a t i n th e c o rre s p o n d i n gonce_
pr es ent e dc o n d i ti o n .
The cued-recall results lrom the second
ex per im e n t a re d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u re 2. A
portion of thoseresultssimply replicateeffects
found in the first experiment. Among the
once-presenteditems, being required to cons t r uc t a s o l u ti o n p ro d u c e d s u b s ta nti al l y
hi_eher
cued-recallthan did reading the solution.F(1. l7)-80.76",VS":.02. Within the
conditions that required construction. reading t he s o l u ti o n i mme d i a te l yp ri o r to s ol vi ng
a problem that required that solution (0spacin_e)lowered later cued-recall as compared to the corresponding once-presented
c ondit ion s th a t s o l v e d th e p ro b l e m w i t hout
pr ev ious l y re a d i n g th e s o l u ti o n . F( l .
171: 32. 64 ,MS . :.0 2 .
657
658
LARRY L. JACOBY
better retention. Evidence that the prior tion and that of the problem. An implication
reading of the solution does influencesolving of emphasizing retrieval is that when rethe problem even at the longest spacing is membering of the solution is enhanced by
provided by both experiments"In both experi- providing more effectivecues. as in the easy
ments,the probability of being unablero solve construction as compared to the hard cona problem was lower when the solution had struction conditions, subsequent retention
been read previously. This reduction in the performance will suffer even when presenprobability of being unablero solvea problem tation of the solution does not immediately
is presumably due to the solution being at precedethat of the problem. The presentation
least partially rememberedin some instances of lesseffectivecuesfor retrieval makes it more
rather than being solely constructed.
likely that the subject will have to solve the
The possibility of rememberingrather than problem rather than remember the solution.
constructinga solution, even when the solu- and subsequentretention benefits.
tion does not immediately precede presenThe above account of the results claims
tation of the problem, castsa new light on the that rememberinga solution always leads to
role of short-term memory in producing the poorer later remembering of that solution
effectof spacingrepetitions.Greeno (1967)has than doesconstructionof the solution.Such a
emphasizedthe role of short-term memory in position is too extreme in that rememberin_s
producing the spacing effect by arguing that sometimesinvolves construction. As one
exa subject might learn nothing from the pre- ample, Lindsay and Norman (197'7) argue
sentation of an item if that item currently convincin_elyt hat construction or reconstrucresidesin short-terrn memory. This is said to tion is involved when we answer a question
be becausethe subject will not select a new about where we were on some specifieddata in
"code" for an item that residesin short-term the distant past.
Perhapsa distinction needsto
memory during its repetition; memory over be drawn between effortful and
effortless
the long term is described as requirin_ethe retrieval (e.g.,Gotz & Jacoby, 1974).
Effortful
selectionof an appropriatecode.Similarly,in retrieval involves many of the same processes
the present paper. it was suggested that as does construction and acts the sameway as
presentation of a problem may have little construction to enhance later retention.
In
effecton subsequentretention if the solution contrast, effortlessrememberingof a solution.
to that problem currently residesin short- regardlessof the spacingof the solution
and
term memory so that solving the problem is problem,is much like readingthe
solution and
trivialized.On the basis of the resultsof the doesrelativelylittle to enhancelater
retention
present experiment, however, it appears that performance"Further theorizing
at this point
effortlessrememberin_erather than residence is by necessity speculative" However,
one
in short-terrn memory is the important factor advantage offered by the procedures
emfor subsequent retention. Discussions of ployed in the present experiments is that
the
short-term memory have usually emphasized task is one that can be further analyzed to
limited-capacity notions so that it is the yield information about the processes
in
number of intervening items that is seen as which subjectsengageto deal with problem.
a
determinin_ewhether or not a particular item
The main questions left unansweredin the
will still reside in short-terrn memory when it above account are: What is
involved in the
is repeated.Implicating easeo[ remembering, construction of a solution and why
does
in contrast, emphasizesthe importance o[ the engaging in construction enhance
later recues provided for retrieval of an earlier pre- tention performance?These questions will
be
sentedsolution as well as the number of items considered in the
discussion.
Before
_seneral
interveningbetweenpresentationof the solu- considering those questions, however. the
659
660
LARRY L. JACOBY
661
662
LARRYL.
JACOBY
663
664
than by the learning of other words. Consequently, the effect of spacing repetitions
should interact with the nature of the activity
intervening between repetitions;the effectsof
spacing should be less pronounced when the
intervening material is distinct from the items
that are to be remembered.Similar lines of
argument can be used to propose manipulations that will amplify or reduce proacrive
inhibition. As suggestedearlier, proactive
inhibition may in part result from a subject
rememberingrather than constructing a procedure for dealing with a particular task or
class of situations.If so, manipulations that
interferewith this rememberingof procedures
should reduce proactive inhibition.
The distinction berweensolving a problem
and rememberinga solution may also help to
clarify the notion of automaticity. Previous
authors have emphasizedextendedpracticeas
a necessary precondition for automaticity
(e.g., Norman, 1976: Shiffrin & Schneider,
1977).Similarly, in discussinglan_euageprocessing, Schank (1976\ has suggested that
repeated encounters with a _eivenclass of
situationare instrumentalin the evolutionof a
"script" that will guide the processing of
further situationsof the same kind. The view
taken here, in contrast,equatesautomaticity
with the rememberingof a solution or encoding; the rememberingof a solution eliminates
the necessityof carrying out the computations
that would otherwisebe required to arrive at
the solution. so performance appears automatic. This emphasis on remembering a
solution can be used to suggestthat factors in
addition to extendedpracticedetermineauromaticity. Rememberingof the solution and.
consequently,automaticity will also be influenced by the length of the delay since the
last encounter with the task or event, the
nature of the activity intervening since that
prior encounter, the similarity of the current
situationto the previousone,and so forth. The
implication is that automaticity is situationspecific:a responsethat is automatic in one
situation will not be automatic in a situation
665
666
LARRY L. JACOBY
667
memory.SanFrancisco.Calif.: W. H. Freemanand
Company.1976.
ScHrrnrx. R. M.. & ScHxrpR. W. Controlled and
automatic human information processing: II.
Perceptuallearning. automatic attending. and a
Review,1977. U,
general theory. Ps.vchological
t27-t90.
WlcNm,. A. R. Primingin STM: An informationproor retrievalcessingmechanismfor self-generated
generatd depression
in performance.In T. J. Tighe
and R. N. Leaton(Eds.).Habiruailon:Perspectives
, animal behavior. and
from child development
hysiology.Hillsdale.N.J.: LaurenceErlbaum
neurop
Associates.1976.
Wnnn. P. B. The relative importanceof proactiveinhibition and degreeof learning in retention of
paired-associate items. British Journal of
Psychology.1964.55, 1F30.
Wlucs. N. C.. & NonunN. D. A. The measureof
interferencein primary memory. Journal of Verhat
Learningand VerbalBehavior,1968..7.611-626.
Wxnrsx. W. 8.. & Blonr. R. A. Learninglrom tests:
Effectsof spacing.Journal of Verbal Learning and
VerbalBehavior.1917.16.465478.
(Received
August8, 1978).