Previous experiments have suggested that, contrary to traditional recommendations, bizarre images are no better than commonplace images as aids to recall. This study, however, indicates that, when other variables are controlled, bizarreness has a strong effect on both immediate and delayed unexpected recall of sentences, whether bizarreness is judged by the experimenter or by each individual subject. Results are discussed in terms of motivation and interference.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreoffG. R.YarmeyD. A.Bizarre imagery and associative learning: A confirmation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 143–148.
2.
BerlyneD. E.Curiosity and exploration. Science, 1966, 153, 25–33.
3.
BowerG. H.Analysis of mnemonic device. American Scientist, 1970, 58, 496–510.
4.
DelinP. S.Success in recall as a function of success in implementation of mnemonic instructions. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 12, 153–154.
5.
KosslynS. M.AlperS. N.On the pictorial properties of visual images: Effects of image size on memory for words. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1977, 31. 32–40.
6.
MerryR.GrahamN. C.Imagery bizarreness in children's recall of sentences. British Journal of Psychology, 1978, 69, 315–321.
7.
PaivioA.YuilleJ. C.Changes in associative strategies and paired associate learning over trials as a function of word imagery and type of learning set. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 459–463.
8.
PostmanL.Verbal learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1975, 26, 291–335.
9.
WollenK. A.WeberA.LowryD. H.Bizarreness versus interaction of mental images as determinants of learning. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3, 518–523.
