Abstract
Relational processing refers to encoding relations among items. Individual-item processing refers to encoding information that makes items discriminable from other items. The present research studied the effects of extensive versus moderate individual-item processing on the encoding of relational information. Of particular interest was the idea that excessive attention to individual item information might interfere with discovering relations. In two studies, subjects performed an orienting task designed to induce either low or high individual-item processing for a list of words. Using clustering as our measure of relational processing, the results showed no difference in relational processing between the low and high individual-item processing groups. These results suggest that individual-item and relational processing are independent in the sense that increased individual-item processing neither enhances nor interferes with the encoding of relational information.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Battig, W. F.,& Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 80(3, Pt. 2).
Bradshaw, G. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21, 165–174.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.
Einstein, G. O., & Hunt, R. R. (1980). Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual-item and relational processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 588–598.
Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Owen, P. D., & CotÉ, N. C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 566–581.
Greenberg, M. S., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1981). Category typicality in free recall: Effects of feature overlap or differential category encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 7, 145–147.
Gruenenfelder, T. M. (1981). Accessing semantic features and logical relations in category verification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514.
Jacoby, L. L.,& Craik, F. I. M. (1979). Effects of elaboration of processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of initial context. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mandler, G. (1967). Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 327–372). New York: Academic Press.
McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., & Lollis, T. (1988). Qualitative and quantitative considerations in encoding difficulty effects. Memory & Cognition, 16, 8–14.
McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. (1977). Long-term retention: When incidental semantic processing fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 3, 270–281.
Roenker, D. L., Thompson, C. P., & Brown, S. C. (1971). Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 45–48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
M. J. Guynn is now in the Department of Psychology at Rice University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guynn, M.J., Einstein, G.O. & Hunt, R.R. Detecting the organization of materials: Perceiving the forest despite the trees. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 30, 145–148 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330423
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330423