title: Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited.
abstract: Performance on tests in which there is control over reporting (e.g., cued recall with the option to withhold responses) can be characterized by four parameters: free- and forced-report retrieval (correct responses retrieved from memory when the option to withhold responses is exercised and when it is not, respectively), monitoring (discrimination between correct and incorrect potential responses), and report bias (willingness to report responses). Typically, researchers do not examine all these components in cued-test performance; blanks are sometimes counted the same as errors, meaning that the (free-report) performance index is contaminated with report bias and monitoring ability. In this research, a two-stage testing procedure is described that allows measures of free- and forced-report retrieval, monitoring, and bias to be derived from the original encoding specificity experiments (Thomson & Tulving, 1970). The results show that their cue-reinstatement manipulation affected free-report retrieval, but once report bias and monitoring effects were removed by forcing output, retrieval was unaffected.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, England. higham@soton.ac.uk
authors.forename: Philip A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Higham
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007389:Internal-External Control; D008297:Male; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D011939:Mental Recall; D010153:Paired-Associate Learning; D012153:Retention, Psychology