Cited by 900Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis

Open access
Smith, Steven M., Vela, Edward·2001·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

To address questions about human memory's dependence on the coincidental environmental contexts in which events occur, we review studies of incidental environmental context-dependent memory in humans and report a meta-analysis. Our theoretical approach to the issue stems from Glenberg's (1997) contention that introspective thought (e.g., remembering, conceptualizing) requires cognitive resources normally used to represent the immediate environment. We propose that if tasks encourage processing of noncontextual information (i.e., introspective thought) at input and/or at test, then both learning and memory will be less dependent on the ambient environmental contexts in which those activities occur. The meta-analysis showed that across all studies, environmental context effects were reliable, and furthermore, that the use of noncontextual cues during learning (overshadowing) and at test (outshining), as well as mental reinstatement of appropriate context cues at test, all reduce the effect of environmental manipulations. We conclude that environmental context-dependent memory effects are less likely to occur under conditions in which the immediate environment is likely to be suppressed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03196157

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bower, G. H., & Cohen, P. R. (1982). Emotional influences in mem- ory and thinking: Data and theory. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition (pp. 263-289). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Eich, [J.] E. (1985). Context, memory, and integrated item/context im- agery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 11, 764-770.
  3. Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1980). When does context influ- ence recognition memory? British Journal of Psychology, 71, 99-104.
  4. Greenspoon, J., & Ranyard, R. (1957). Stimulus conditions and retro- active inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 55-59.
  5. Smith, S. M., Vela, E., & Williamson, J. E. (1988). Shallow input pro- cessing does not induce environmental context-dependent recogni- tion. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 537-540.
  6. Dallett, K., & Wilcox, S. G. (1968). Contextual stimuli and proactive inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 475-480.
  7. Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1984). Hypnotic and cognitive interviews to en- hance the memory of eyewitnesses to crime. International Journal of Investigative & Forensic Hypnosis, 7, 28-31.
  8. Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: Land and underwa- ter. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-331.
  9. Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 58-69.
  10. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Guided memory in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 343-350.
  11. Smith, S. M. (1985b). Environmental context and recognition memory reconsidered. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 173-176.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, S. M., & Vela, E.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • California State University, Chico (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Steven M.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2001-06
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
203-220
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2106029369
Cited by
900
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 33
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
incidental memory, contextual interference, overshadowing, contextual cues, learning and memory
MeSH terms
Association Learning, Concept Formation, Humans, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Social Environment, Thinking

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