the memory system. It is easier to find a memory record in an uncluttered space
than in a cluttered space, just as it would be easier to findThe Joy of Nauseain
a library that had only one book on the topic of nausea than in a library that
carried hundreds of books on nausea.
That distinctive events are readily remembered has been well established by
research (see Schmidt, 1991, for a review). In one experiment that required
subjects to recall words from a list, the subjects were better able to remember
that an animal name appeared on the list if the animal name was embedded in
a list of names of countries than if the same animal name was embedded in a
list of other animal names (Schmidt, 1985). This finding is an example of the
Von Restorff effect, after the psychologist who first discovered it (Von Restorff,
1933). In another experiment, subjects were given photographs of human faces
and were asked to judge the distinctiveness of each face. When later asked to
recognize which faces they had previously studied, the subjects more accu-
rately recognized the faces they rated as distinctive than the faces they rated as
common (Cohen & Carr, 1975). At least some research shows that events
associated with strong emotions, which are presumably distinctive, are better
remembered than emotionally more neutral events (e.g., Waters & Leeper,
1936; Holmes, 1972).
Best-selling books on how to improve memory (e.g., Lorayne and Lucas,
1974) encourage the use of bizarre imagery to improve the memorability of
verbal information, such as names of people. Bizarre images presumably make
information more distinctive. But does the use of bizarre imagery really im-
prove memory? The answer seems to be a qualified yes.
The standard experimental paradigm investigating the role of imagery in
memory requires subjects to memorize word pairs (e.g.,chicken–cigar)bymak-
ing various kinds of images of the words. The results have shown that when
people create bizarre images to connect the words (e.g., a chicken smoking a
cigar), they will later recall more of the words than when they create common
images (e.g., a chicken pecking a cigar) to connect the words (for a review, see
Einstein, McDaniel, & Lackey, 1989). However, the advantage of bizarre over
common images usually occurs only when the same person is required to make
bizarre images for some of the words on the to-be-remembered list and ordi-
nary images for the rest of the words on the list. When subjects are required to
make bizarre images for all the words on the list, then the individual images
are not as distinctive, and there is no longer an advantage of bizarre images
over common images. Research also suggests that the superiority of the bizarre
image technique is greater if the memory test is done days after studying the
list (Webber & Marshall, 1978). When the delay between forming the images
and recalling the words is only a few minutes, memory for the words is at least
as good using the common image technique.
That distinctive events are memorable is also revealed in memory for real-life
experiences. Erickson and Jemison (1991) had students record one event from
their lives each day for 12 weeks, and 5 months later take several memory tests
on the events. They found that the more memorable events tended to be the
distinctive ones—that is, the ones rated atypical, infrequent, or surprising.
They also found that positive events were more memorable, possibly because
positive events are likely to be thought about and discussed frequently.
Memory 323