Two experiments examined age-related differences in memory for bizarre and common pictures. In Experiment 1, a facilitative effect of bizarreness was obtained for young adults and one of the older groups, but not for the oldest group (over age 70). However, the bizarreness effect was found for even the oldest group when predominantly common lists were used in Experiment 2. It is concluded that older adults suffer from deficits in distinctive processing, but those deficits can be reduced by providing a more uniformly common context in which differences can be processed.
BiretaT. J.SuprenantA. M.NeathI. (2008). Age-related differences in the Von Restorff isolation effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology61, 345–352.
2.
CimbaloR. S.BrinkL. (1982). Aging and the von Restorff effect in short-term memory.Journal of General Psychology106, 69–76.
3.
CraikF. I. M.McDowdJ. M. (1987). Age differences in recall and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition13, 671–684.
4.
EinsteinG. O.HuntR. R. (1980). Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual item and relational processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory6, 588–598.
5.
EinsteinG. O.McDanielM. A. (1987). Distinctiveness and the mnemonic benefits of bizarre imagery.Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences and applicationsMcDanielM. A.PressleyM.New York: Springer-Verlag78–102.
6.
EmmerichH. J.AckermanB. P. (1979). A test of bizarre interaction as a factor in children's memory.Journal of Genetic Psychology134, 225–232.
HuntR. R. (2006). The concept of distinctiveness in memory research.Distinctiveness and memoryHuntR. R.WorthenJ. B.New York: Oxford University Press3–25.
9.
HuntR. R.EinsteinG. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20, 497–514.
10.
KalafatM.Hugunot-DenierL.PoitrenaudJ. (2003). Etalonnage français du MMS version GRECO [French calibration of the MMS by the GRECO].Revue de Neuropsychologie13, 209–236.
11.
KauslerD. H. (1994). Learning and memory in normal agingNew York: Academic Press.
12.
KrollN. E. A.TuS. F. (1988). The bizarre mnemonic.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung50, 28–37.
13.
LangV. A. (1995). Relative association, interactiveness, and the bizarre imagery effect.American Journal of Psychology108, 13–35.
14.
LightL. L. (1991). Memory and aging: Four hypotheses in search of data.Annual Review of Psychology42, 333–376.
15.
MarchalA.NicolasS. (2000). Is the picture bizarreness effect a generation effect?.Psychological Report87, 331–340.
16.
MarchalA.NicolasS. (2003). Normes de production catégorielle pour 38 catégories sémantiques: étude sur des sujets jeunes et âgés [Category generation norms for 38 semantic categories: Young and older subjects].L'Année Psychologique103, 313–366.
17.
McDanielM. A.EinsteinG. O. (1986). Bizarre imagery as an effective memory: The importance of distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition12, 54–65.
18.
McDanielM. A.EinsteinG. O.DeLoshE. L.MayC. P.BradyP. (1995). The bizarreness effect: It's not surprising, it's complex.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition21, 422–435.
19.
MichelonP.SnyderA. Z.BucknerR. L.MacAvoyM.ZacksJ. M. (2003). Neural correlates of incongruity: An fMRI study.NeuroImage19, 1612–1626.
20.
Naveh-BenjaminM. (2000). Adult age differences in memory performance: Tests of an associative deficit hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition26, 1170–1187.
21.
NicolasS.GyselinckV. (2008). Mental imagery and the bizarreness effect Manuscript in preparation.
22.
NicolasS.MarchalA. (1996). Picture bizarreness effect and word association.Current Psychology of Cognition15, 629–643.
23.
NicolasS.MarchalA. (1998). Implicit memory, explicit memory and the picture bizarreness effect.Acta Psychologica99, 43–58.
24.
PiolinoP.DesgrangesB.ClarysD.Guillery-GirardB.TaconnatL.IsingriniM. (2006). Autobiographical memory, autonoetic consciousness, and self-perspective in aging.Psychology and Aging21, 510–525.
25.
RavenJ. C. (2005). Echelle de vocabulaire Mill HillParis: ECPA [Mill Hill vocabulary scale].
26.
RönnlundM.NybergL.BäckmanL.NilssonL.-G. (2005). Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study.Psychology and Aging20, 3–18.
27.
SchmidtS. R.WilliamsA. R. (2001). Memory for humorous cartoons.Memory & Cognition29, 305–311.
28.
SharpeL.MarkhamR. (1992). The effect of distinctiveness of bizarre imagery on immediate and delayed recall.Journal of Mental Imagery16, 211–220.
29.
SmithR. E. (2006). Adult age differences in episodic memory: Item-specific, organizational, and distinctive information.Distinctiveness and memoryHuntR. R.WorthenJ. B.New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
SmithR. E.LozitoJ.BayenU. J. (2005). Adult age differences in distinctive processing: The modality effect in false recall.Psychology & Aging20, 486–492.
31.
TulvingE.RosenbaumR. S. (2006). What do explanations of the distinctiveness effect need to explain. In Distinctiveness and memoryHuntR. R.WorthenJ. B.New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
WorthenJ. B. (2006). Resolution of discrepant memory strengths: An explanation of the effects of bizarreness on memory.Distinctiveness and memoryHuntR. R.WorthenJ. B.New York: Oxford University Press133–156.
33.
WorthenJ. B.EllerL. S. (2002). Test of competing of competing explanations of the bizarre response bias in recognition memory.Journal of General Psychology129, 36–48.
34.
WorthenJ. B.MarshallP. H. (1996). Intralist and extralist sources of distinctiveness and the bizarreness effect: The importance of contrast.American Journal of Psychology109, 239–263.
35.
ZacksR. T.HasherL.LiK. Z. H. (2000). Human memory.The handbook of aging and cognitionCraikF. I. M.SalthouseT. A.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates293–358.
