Abstract
Twenty-two reflective and 22 impulsive college subjects were tested in a forced-choice visual recognition memory task. Half of the reflective and half of the impulsive subjects were shown the presentation stimuli for 4 sec each; half were shown the stimuli for 8 sec each. In three of the experimental conditions (1FD, 2FD, 4FD), the number of visual feature differences between the correct and incorrect test stimuli was 1, 2, or 4, and correct response could not be based on the name of the stimulus. In the fourth condition (DO), the correct and incorrect test stimuli had different names. As predicted, performance on DO and 4FD was equivalent and was superior to that on 1FD and 2FD. Mean correct response latencies mirrored the correct response data. Although reflective subjects made more correct responses than did impulsive subjects in all four conditions, only the performance differences in Conditions 1FD and 2FD were significant. Neither the main effect of initial exposure time nor the R-I by Exposure Time interaction was significant. These results were discussed within the framework of the Selfridge-Neisser feature-testing model of recognition memory, and the data support the contention that the primary underlying basis for the dimension of reflection-impulsivity is that of detailed visual feature analysis of stimulus arrays.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Drake, D. M. Perceptual correlates of impulsive and reflective behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2, 202–214.
Kagan, J. Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 609–628.
Kagan, J., & Kogan, N. Individual variation in cognitive processes. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley, 1970. Pp. 1366–1378.
Kagan, J., Pearson, L., & Welch, L. Conceptual impulsivity and inductive reason. Child Development, 1966, 37, 583–594.
Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 1964, 78(1, Whole No. 578).
Kilburg, R. R., & Siegel, A. W. Differential feature analysis in the recognition memory of reflective and impulsive children. Memory and Cognition, 1973. 1, 413–419.
Neisser, U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Nuessle, W. Reflectivity as an influence on focussing behavior of children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1972, 14, 265–276.
Odom, R. D., McIntyre, C. W., & Neale, G. S. The influence of cognitive style on perceptual learning. Child Development, 1971. 42, 883–892.
Selfridge, O. G. Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In Mechanization of thought processes. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1959. Pp. 512–526.
Siegel, A. W., Babich, J. M., & Kirasic, K. C. Visual recognition memory in reflective and impulsive children. Memory and Cognition, 1974, 2, 379–384.
Siegelman, E. Reflective and impulsive observing behavior. Child Development, 1969, 40, 1213–1222.
Zelniker, T., Jeffrey, W. E., Ault, R., & Parsons, J. Analysis and modification of search strategies of impulsive and reflective children on the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Child Development, 1972, 43, 321–335.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kirasic, K.C., Siegel, A.W. Recognition memory for pictures: Evidence for a feature-analytic basis of cognitive style. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 6, 453–456 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337535
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337535