CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 90Memory Processes and InfluencesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Retrieval volition and memorial awareness in stem completion: An empirical analysis

Richardson-Klavehn, Alan, Gardiner, John M.·1995·Psychological Research
DOI 10.1007/bf00431278
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Facilitation in an incidental test of stem completion shows little influence of depth of processing at study, whereas facilitation in an opposition test (in which subjects give the first word coming to mind, but omit studied words) occurs following graphemic processing, but not following semantic processing. We argue that completions come to mind involuntarily in both tests. Involuntary conscious memory causes studied words to be omitted in an opposition test, but not in an incidental test, so that the difference in priming between tests is a measure of involuntary conscious memory. We obtained data consistent with this hypothesis by making overt the mental activities that occur covertly in an opposition test: (1) an on-line recognition measure in an incidental test showed a strong advantage of semantic over graphemic processing, even though depth of processing exerted little influence on priming; (2) conditionalizing on recognition failure resulted in accurate estimates of opposition performance; and (3) stems were completed much more rapidly in incidental and opposition tests than in an intentional test, in which voluntary retrieval was engaged. The data provide further evidence that retrieval volition (voluntary vs. involuntary) is dissociable from memorial state of awareness (conscious vs. unconscious). We contrast our approach with the process-dissociation approach, which confounds conscious awareness of the past with voluntary retrieval, overlooking involuntary consciou…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00431278

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bjork, R. A., & Richardson-Klavehn,A. (1988). On the puzzling relationship between environmental context and human memory. In C. Izawa (Ed.), Current issues in cognitive processes: The Tulane Flowerree symposium (pp. 313?344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Bowers, J. S., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Implicit memory and test awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, and Cognition, 16, 404?416.
  3. Craik, F. I. M., Moscovitch, M., & McDowd, J. M. (1994). Contributions of surface and semantic information to performance on implicit and explicit memory tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 864?875.
  4. Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (trans. H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius). New York: Dover Publications. Original work published 1885.
  5. Graf, P., & Komatsu, S. (1994). Process dissociation procedure: Handle with caution! European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 113?129. · DOI
  6. Graf, P., & Mandler, G. (1984). Activation makes words more accessible, but not necessarily more retrievable. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 553?568. · DOI
  7. Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 501?518.
  8. Jacoby, L. L. (1984). Incidental versus intentional retrieval: Remembering and awareness as separate issues. In L. R. Squire & N. Butters (Eds.), Neuropsychology of memory (pp. 145?156). New York: Guilford.
  9. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic and intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513?541. · DOI
  10. Jacoby, L. L., & Hollingshead, A. (1992). Toward a generate/recognize model of performance on direct and indirect tests of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 433?454. · DOI
  11. Jacoby, L. L., Toth, J. P., & Yonelinäs, A. P. (1993). Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 139?154. · DOI
  12. Jacoby, L. L., Woloshyn, V., & Kelley, C. M. (1989). Becoming famous without being recognized: Unconscious influences of memory produced by dividing attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 115?125, · DOI
  13. Johnson, M. K., & Hasher, L. (1987). Human learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 631?668. · DOI
  14. Richardson-Klavehn, A., & Bjork, R. A. (1988). Measures of memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 475?543. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Richardson-Klavehn, A., Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1994a). Involuntary conscious memory and the method of opposition. Memory, 2, 1?29. · DOI
  16. Richardson-Klavehn, A., Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (in press). Memory: Task dissociations, process dissociations, and dissociations of consciousness. To appear in G. Underwood (Ed.), Implicit cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  17. Richardson-Klavehn, A., Lee, M. G., Joubran, R., & Bjork, R. A. (1994b). Intention and awareness in perceptual identification priming. Memory & Cognition, 22, 293?312. · DOI
  18. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1994), The problem of differing false-alarm rates for the process dissociation procedure: Comment on Verfaillie and Treadwell (1993). Neuropsychology, 8. 284?288. · DOI
  19. Roediger, H. L., Weldon, M. S., Stadler, M. L., & Riegler, G. L. (1992). Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: Word fragment and word stem completion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1251?1269.
  20. Schacter, D. L., Bowers, J., & Booker, J. (1989). Intention, awareness, and implicit memory: The retrieval intentionality criterion. In S. Lewandowsky, J. C. Dunn, & K. Kirsner (Eds.), Implicit memory: theoretical issues (pp. 47?65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  21. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.
  22. Toth, J. P., Reingold, E. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Toward a redefinition of implicit memory: Process dissociation following elaborative processing and self-generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 290?303.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Richardson-Klavehn, A., & Gardiner, J. M.
Affiliations
City, University of London (GB)
Venue
Psychological Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1995-04
Volume
57
Issue
3-4
Pages
166-178
ISSN
  • 0033-3026 (ISSN-L)
  • 0340-0727
  • 1430-2772
DOI
10.1007/bf00431278
OpenAlex
W2032438768
Cited by
90
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychological Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
stem completion, incidental learning, semantic processing, levels of processing, priming, recognition failure, process dissociation
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Female, Humans, Male, Paired-Associate Learning, Phonetics, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Semantics, Verbal Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review