I just retrieved the paper in question and the following explanation from the authors sort of verifies what I had been thinking:
"Recall of information in massed paraphrased repetitions was significantly greater than recall of information in massed verbatim repetitions of both visually and aurally presented information. Third, contrasts of verbatim and paraphrased materials in spaced repetitions conditions indicated no significant difference in recall. The results confirm those of Dellarosa and Bourne (1985) and extend them to a longer segment of prose and to aurally presented information". However, as with most psychological phenomena, 'it's complicated'. Further down in the discussion they elaborate their results as follows: "When massed paraphrased repetitions are considered, full encoding also should occur on each repetition. Paraphrased versions of the same material differ enough in surface structure so that the retrieval cues they offer are not sufficient for easy retrieval of the prior encoding. When retrieval of prior encodings fails, full-encoding processes occur. The resulting memory trace, then, should be equivalent to that observed in spaced repetitions. Paraphrased versions of material presented in spaced trials, however, should be no more effective than verbatim versions because full-encoding processes are required regardless of whether the repeated material is presented in verbatim or paraphrased versions". Thank you, Mike! Miguel -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Roig [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:31 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Is memory better when message is conveyed with different words the second time around? Thanks for this suggestion, Mike. I don't think this is the paper I had in mind, but it is certainly relevant. The result showing that students who read paraphrased versions of the paragraphs in massed repetitions did as well as those who read the (paraphrased?) paragraphs in the spaced condition strikes me as supporting a levels of processing approach, for one would always expect the massed condition to result in worse performance. I will need to read the actual paper. Thanks again! Miguel ________________________________________ From: Mike Palij [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:45 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Michael Palij Subject: re: [tips] Is memory better when message is conveyed with different words the second time around? On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:48:02 -0700, Miguel Roig wrote: >Hi everyone, in my work on plagiarism I have come across the claim that >a reader will have better memory/understanding of a message if on >subsequent trials that message is conveyed in different words. Miguel, are you asking for something like the following: Influence of paraphrased repetitions on the spacing effect. Glover, John A.; Corkill, Alice J. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 79(2), Jun 1987, 198-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.2.198 In two experiments, we examined the "spacing" effect in students' memory for paragraphs and brief lectures. In the first experiment, students who read massed verbatim repetitions of paragraphs recalled less of the content than did students who read verbatim repetitions spaced across time. In addition, students who read paraphrased versions of the paragraphs in massed repetitions recalled as much as did students who read the paragraphs in the spaced conditions. For Experiment 2, we used a brief lecture as the to-be-learned material and replicated the results of Experiment 1. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) I don't think that level of processing theory explains results like this, rather, massed verbatim repetition probably gives rise to proactive interference (PI) and reducing memory performance while massed paraphrase (which has the original followed by the paraphrase) would have less PI, at least at the surface or "verbatim" level. Glover & Corkill give a somewhat different explanation based on Cuddy & Jacoby (1982). Also, the Glover & Corkill article is a replication of Dellarosa & Bourne (1985) -- refs follow: Cuddy, L. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (1982). When forgetting helps memory: An analysis of repetition effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 451-467. Dellarosa, D., & Bourne, L. E. (1985). Surface form and the spacing effect. Memory and Cognition, 13. 529-537. HTH -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c12d&n=T&l=tips&o=49524 or send a blank email to leave-49524-1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c12d&n=T&l=tips&o=49525 or send a blank email to leave-49525-1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=49530 or send a blank email to leave-49530-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
