Two experiments investigated the susceptibility of common and unusual action events to memory distortion under incidental learning and delayed testing conditions. Experiment 1 tested the influence of imaginal and enactment instructions at testing on memory discrimination for self-performed and imagined acts. The influence of hypnotic procedures at testing on memory discrimination for action events was tested in Experiment 2. The results of both experiments suggest that the likelihood of confusing details associated with separate, previously experienced unusual action events is greater than the likelihood of confusing details associated with separate, previously experienced common action events. Based on the results of both experiments, it is concluded that bizarreness has both memory-facilitating and memory-inhibiting qualities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurnsD. J. (1996). The bizarre imagery effect and intention to learn.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review3, 254–257.
2.
CarterB. T. (1988). Handbook of hypnotic techniquesTampa, FL: Free Press.
3.
EngelkampJ.ZimmerH. D.BiegelmannU. E. (1993). Bizarreness effects in verbal tasks and subject- performed tasks.Europe an Journal of Cognitive Psychology5, 393–415.
4.
EngelkampJ.ZimmerH. D.MohrG.SellenO. (1994). Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition.Memory & Cognition22, 34–39.
5.
ErdelyiM. (1994). Hypnotic hypermnesia: The empty set of hypermnesia.International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis42, 379–390.
6.
FreydJ. J.GleavesD. H. (1996). Remembering words not presented in lists: Relevance to the current recovered/false memory controversy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition22, 811–813.
7.
GoffL. M.RoedigerH. L.III (1998). Imagination inflation for action events: Repeated imaginings lead to illusory recollections.Memory & Cognition26, 20–33.
8.
HirshmanE.WhelleyM. M.PalijM. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects.Journal of Memory of Language28, 594–609.
9.
JohnsonM. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: An experimental phenomenological approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 390–394.
10.
KnopfM. (1991). Having shaved a kiwi fruit: Memory for unfamiliar subject-performed actions.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung53, 203–211.
11.
KrollN. E. A.TuS. F. (1988). The bizarre Mnemonic.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung50, 28–37.
12.
LoftusE. F.PalmerJ. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13, 585–589.
13.
LynnS. J.LockT. G.MyersB.PayneD. G. (1997). Recalling the unrecallable: Should hypnosis be used to recover memories in psychotherapy.Current Directions in Psychological Science6, 79–83.
14.
McDanielM. A.EinsteinG. O. (1986). Bizarreness as an effective memory aid: The importance of distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition12, 54–65.
15.
MohrG.EngelkampJ.ZimmerH. D. (1989). Recall and recognition of self-performed acts.Psychological Research/ Psychologische Forschung51, 181–187.
16.
Illusions of memory [Special issue].NelsonD. L.RoedigerH. L.IIIJournal of Memory and Language, 3519962.
17.
ReadyD. J.BothwellR. K.BrighamJ. C. (1997). The effects of hypnosis, context reinstatement, and anxiety on eyewitness memory.International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis45, 55–68.
18.
RichmanC. L. (1994). The bizarreness effect with complex sentences: Temporal effects.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology48, 444–450.
19.
RoedigerH. L.IIIMcDermottK. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21, 803–814.
20.
SchacterD. L.ReimanE.CurranT.YunL. S.BandyD.McDermottK. B.RoedigerH. L. (1996). Neuroanatomical correlates of veridical and illusory recognition memory: Evidence from positron emission tomography.Neuron17, 267–274.
21.
SnodgrassJ. G.CorwinJ. (1998). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General117, 34–50.
22.
WorthenJ. B. (1997). Resiliency of bizarreness effects under varying conditions of verbal and imaginal elaboration and processing mode.Journal of Mental Imagery21, 167–194.
23.
worthenJ. B.Garcia-RivasG.GreenC. R.VidosR. A.Cognitive resource allocation and the bizarreness effect.Journal of General Psychology. in Press.
24.
WorthenJ. B.MarshallP. H. (1996). Intralist and extralist distinctiveness and the bizarreness effect: The Importance of contrast.American Journal of Psychology109, 239–263.
25.
WorthenJ. B.MarshallP. H.CoxK. B. (1998). List length and the bizarreness effect: Support for a hybrid explanation.Psychological Research/Psychologiscahe Forschung61, 147–156.
26.
ZollerC. L.WorkmanJ. S.KrollN. E. A. (1989). The bizarre mnemonic: the effect of retention interval and mode of presentation.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society27, 215–218.
