Procedure: The participants were given one schema at the encoding stage and one schema at the retrieval stage, to see if they were influenced. In a later study, Anderson and Pichert () presented evidence for the effect of reader perspective on retrieval processes. Subjects who shifted to the alternate. Key Study: Anderson and Pichert () Aim: To investigate if schema processing influences both encoding and retrievalMethod: Highly controlled l.
|Published (Last):||1 January 2010|
|PDF File Size:||7.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Consumer knowledge about a product class influences learning and remembering; processes active at both encoding and retrieval affect the designation of importance and ultimately, the accessibility of information. For the expert, more elaborate schema allows them to use their prior knowledge to more deeply encode information, and to access the information later with a rich network of cues.
Anderson and Pichert () – Mr. Yingling Social Studies
For the novice, the processes at encoding are less important. It is the processes at retrieval which influence whether or not information is remembered.
The processes do not act independently, there is evidence of an interaction between encoding and retrieval processes. A study is presented which demonstrates the effects of knowledge on remembering product information. Andrson that is determined to be important to a theme Alba and Hutchinson ; Anderson and Pichert or the accomplishment of a goal Voss, Greene, Post and Penner is better recalled than information determined to be less important.
The assignment of importance or relevance may be made at encoding or at retrieval. Evidence exists supporting both the encoding explanation Alba, Alexander, Hasher and Caniglia ; Ausubel ; Andetsonand the retrieval explanation Anderson and Pichert ; Anderson, Pichert and Shirey ; Mandler and Johnson ; Pichert and Anderson Alternatively, research in cognitive psychology emphasizes the interaction between encoding and retrieval as critical in determining what information is recalled Craik and Lockhart ; Tulving ; Tulving and Thomson The explanation offered in this paper is that some consumers assign importance at encoding, while others assign importance at retrieval.
Anderson and Pichert () by Matty Hickman on Prezi
The difference between these consumers is the degree of product knowledge or expertise. The ability to assign importance at encoding requires the consumer to have previous knowledge which will facilitate learning, while the ability to assign importance at retrieval requires an elaborated schema which provides an orderly search for important information.
The expert is skilled in distinguishing between important and unimportant information, as well as between relevant and irrelevant information Alba and Hutchinson The novice, on the other hand, focuses on surface details Chi, Feltovich and Glaserand peripheral cues Brucks The encoding hypothesis posits that processes operative during the encoding of the information ultimately affect what information is learned and remembered.
Anderson, Pichert and Shirey offer three mechanisms responsible for this effect. First, the schema directs the attention of the processor to specific details in the text see Spilich, Voss, Chiesi and Vesonder Second, the schema provides a framework or a scaffolding which facilitates the collection of information significant to the schema Ausubel ; Chiesi, Spilich and Voss ; Spilich, Voss, Chiesi and Vesonder Third, the schema equips the processor with rules and applications which allow for elaboration through the generation of inferences see Alba and Hutchinson Support for the encoding hypothesis is offered by Chiesi, Spilich and Voss They provide evidence that a more developed schema serves as a framework for organizing information as it is encoded.
The presence of a framework allows for comprehension of more complex information experiments three and five. Subjects with more elaborate knowledge structures perform better on tests of recall. The processes active during encoding appear to have had less influence on subjects with less developed schemas. The retrieval hypothesis proposes that the schema influences processes responsible for the retrieval of the information.
The schema may provide: The more complex the schema directing the search, reconstruction or editing, the more pronounced the effect. Anderson and Pichert demonstrate support of the retrieval hypothesis. Subjects given a perspective either a burglar or a homebuyer prior to reading a story which describes a home and its contents, were required to recall information from the original perspective and later from the other perspective.
The information recalled with the first perspective is interpreted as an indication of encoding effects.
The information recalled with the other perspective is interpreted as an indication of retrieval effects. Subjects were found to edit the information they initially acquired since they recalled additional information relevant to the second perspective. The design does not effectively manipulate encoding, and therefore does not test for the effects of the processes active at encoding. Implicit in the paradigms used in the study of anserson the retrieval or the encoding processes, is the assumption that the processes are independent.
Evidence in cognitive psychology suggests that the processes are not independent. The external and cognitive environment at encoding determines the characteristics of the memory trace, which influences the ability to retrieve the original information Tulving ; Tulving and Thomson To properly assess the processes influencing the importance designation, both encoding and retrieval must be manipulated. In summary, there are three ways that schemas may affect the encoding of information; anderaon directing attention, by providing a scaffolding and by encouraging inferential elaboration.
There are also three ways that schemas affect retrieval; by supporting an orderly search, by aiding in the reconstruction of missing information and by providing rules for editing.
There is also evidence of an interaction between the encoding and retrieval; encoding specificity for example. Encoding, retrieval and their interaction must be considered when studying recall. The previous discussion indicates the degree of elaboration of the knowledge structures allows for the processes at either encoding or recall to influence recall.
Consumers with different levels of prior knowledge, and therefore different degrees of elaboration in these knowledge structures, will be picherrt influenced by the processes active at both encoding and retrieval. The difference in knowledge structures and their influence on recall, is discussed in wnd next section.
The results of a series of studies examining chess experts by Chase and Simon caused a shift in focus from the differences in search strategies as a source of expertise to the differences in the quantity, content and organization of localized knowledge.
Experts are characterized as having more domain specific information Chi, Glaser and Rees ; Mitchell, Dacin and Chi which is more organized than the andedson specific knowledge held by the novice Alba and Hutchinson ; Chi, Feltovich and Glaser ; Fiske, Kinder and Larter Consequently, the expert will have a more comprehensive schema for the domain when compared to the novice.
Lurigio and Carroll used semistructured interviews, sorting tasks and decision settings to evaluate the structure of expert and novice probation officers’ schema and its influence on decision making. They found that expert probation officers integrated new experiences by rejecting less useful information and enriching the present schemas with more useful information. Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi and Voss found that high knowledge subjects offered information which was not present in their earlier verbal protocols when later questioned.
They attribute this finding to the expert’s elaborate schema which facilitates discrimination between more and less useful information. This ability to discriminate facilitates the editing demonstrated by Anderson and Pichert Experts will edit provide information in the second recall which was previously unrecallable more than will novices, when they are given a second retrieval context.
Experts will edit based on importance, novices will be less able to do so. Knowledge can be represented wnd hierarchical, with highly inclusive concepts subsuming more specific information.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
Availability of the appropriate specific information will improve assimilation of incoming information Ausubel ; Ausubel, Robbins and Blake This suggests that encoding will be facilitated with a more elaborate knowledge structure which contains more specific information.
However, encoding information at a specific level may influence the ability to retrieve the information. For instance, if information is encoded with a general schema shopping for a bicyclethen all information relevant to shopping for a bicycle will be considered as important.
If the information is then retrieved with a specific schema shopping for a trendy bike or shopping for a durable bikethe retrieved information will differ depending on what is important for a trendy bike in one instance, and what is important for a durable bike in the other.
Conversely, if information is encoded with a specific schema which assigns importance on the basis of that schema, and retrieved with a different specific schema, then changing the assignment of importance will be difficult.
Thus, less information will be recalled Cowley It is the expert that possesses both general and specific schema. The expert will better be able to provide information important to the situation if allowed to encode with a general schema, than if asked to use different specific schema.
The novice will always use a general schema to encode information, therefore there will differ less in their performance. Experts will edit more when information is encoded with a general context and retrieved with a specific context, than if encoded and retrieved with a specific context. There will be less difference in editing performance for novices. Demonstrating that information can be recovered by providing a different retrieval context is evidence of the influence of the processes active during retrieval Anderson and Pichert ; Anderson, Pichert and Shirey ; Pichert and Anderson A change in the influence of the retrieval condition by changing the encoding condition evidences an interaction between encoding and retrieval.
The expert will edit more often than the novice. The information edited by the expert will be important to the second retrieval context.
Editing provides evidence of the influence of the processes active at retrieval the retrieval explanation. The evidence is that the designation of importance is made at retrieval. The expert will edit more if allowed to encode information with a general context, than if provided a specific context. Variation in the magnitude of the influence of the retrieval processes as a result of a manipulation of the encoding condition evidences an interaction between encoding and retrieval.
In order to understand the influences of the processes active during encoding and retrieval, two different conditions are used. Retrieval is manipulated in both conditions by providing two different usage contexts on two separate recall occasions. Encoding is manipulated between subjects.
In one condition subjects encode with a context, in the other condition they do not. The context condition is a replication of the procedure used in Anderson and Pichert which manipulates retrieval within subjects.
In the no context condition subjects are provided usage contexts at retrieval only. Sixty Six undergraduate students of an eastern university were randomly assigned to one of two encoding conditions: Those assigned to the no context condition were not given a usage context, they were just asked to read the story slowly and carefully.
Students were allowed to take as much time as they wanted to read the story 178. Reading time varied between 1. Recall was measured twice. Once for an image related context, and again for a function related context. They have been to one meeting, and they like the people in the club very much, but they noticed that everyone has a puchert, stylish bike. They are going shopping for a new bike. The functional usage context is operationalized by instructing the subjects that they want a bicycle to get them from point A to point B.
Anderson and Pichert 1978
That they do not need anything fancy, just something durable and reliable. They are also concerned for their safety on the street. Subjects were designated as expert, intermediate or novice on the basis of their subjective and objective knowledge, familiarity and experience scores.
Only experts and novices are used in this analysis, this is discussed in the Measure of Expertise section. Product information was embedded in a story. The story was words and contained 61 idea units. The product information was presented as though it was being seen in a bicycle shop.
There were four different types of bicycles mentioned in the story that fall into two general usage contexts; image related and functional.