Any item that violates its current context will be well remembered, a phenomenon typically attributed to distinctiveness. Distinctiveness often is used as a synonym for difference, but, in fact, the beneficial effects of distinctiveness on memory arise only when both similarity and difference are encoded. In this article, I describe an approach modeled on a theory of similarity judgment that defines distinctive processing as the processing of difference in the context of similarity. Such processing has been shown to be highly diagnostic of particular events and of items within those events. Research predicated on this definition has shown impressive memory for target items, in addition to explaining how distinctive processing protects against incorrect memory. A focus on distinctive processing is a promising approach to understanding the precision that characterizes the normal operation of memory.
BeggI. (1978). Similarity and contrasts in memory for relations. Memory & Cognition, 6, 509–517.
2.
BousfieldW. A.RosnerD. G. (1970). Free vs. uninhibited recall. Psychonomic Science, 20, 75–76.
3.
CalkinsM. W. (1894). Association. Psychological Review, 1, 476–483.
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 Memory, 6, 588–598.
5.
EpsteinM. L.PhillipsW. D.JohnsonS. J. (1975). Recall of related and unrelated word pairs as a function of processing level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 149–152.
6.
GalloD. A. (2006). Associative illusions of memory: False memory research in DRM and related tasks. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
7.
GentnerD.MarkmanA. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5, 152–158.
8.
HegeA. C. G.DodsonC. S. (2004). Why distinctive information reduces false memories: Evidence for both reduced relational processing and the distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 787–795.
9.
HumphreysM. S. (1978). Item and relational information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 185–187.
10.
HuntR. R. (2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 811–825.
11.
HuntR. R. (2006). The concept of distinctiveness in memory research. In HuntR. R.WorthenJ. B. (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
HuntR. R. (2012). Distinctive processing: The co-action of similarity and difference in memory. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning of motivation (Vol. 56, pp. 1–46). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
13.
HuntR. R.EinsteinG. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 497–514.
14.
HuntR. R.SmithR. E. (1996). Accessing the particular from the general: The power of distinctiveness in the context of organization. Memory & Cognition, 24, 217–225.
15.
HuntR. R.SmithR. E.DunlapK. D. (2011). How does distinctive processing reduce false memory?Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 378–389.
16.
MäntyläT. (1986). Optimizing cue effectiveness: Recall of 500 and 600 incidentally learned words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 66–71.
17.
MarkmanA. B.GentnerD. (2005). Nonintentional similarity processing. In HassinR.BarghJ. A.UlemanJ. S. (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 107–137). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814.
19.
RoedigerH. L.McDermottK. B. (2000). Distortions of memory. In TulvingE.CraikF. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 149–162). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
RoedigerH. L.PayneD. G. (1985). Recall criterion does not affect recall level or hypermnesia: A puzzle for generate-recognize theories. Memory & Cognition, 13, 1–7.
21.
SchacterD. L.IsraelL.RacineC. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and older adults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 1–24.
von RestorffH. (1933). Uber die wirkung von bereichsblidungen im spurenfeld [An analysis of the processes in the trace field]. Psychologische Forschung [Psychological Research], 18, 299–342. English translation retrieved from http://www.utsa.edu/mind/von_restorff_translation.htm
