- Email: [email protected]
The effects of schema appropriateness on recall
JOURNAL
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
23,
225-234 (1989)
The Effects of Schema Appropriateness on Recall M. L. KLOTZ AND MARK D. ALICKE University of Florida This study tested the hypothesis that the efficacy of a person-schema as an information processing structure will depend on the appropriateness of the schema for the information (i.e., how well the schema fits the information). We manipulated schema appropriateness by asking subjects to evaluate a positive or negative target (target valence), while comparing her either to themselves, or to someone they knew well and liked, or knew well and disliked (schema focus). We hypothesized that the self and the liked-other would be appropriate schemas for the positive target, while the disliked-other would be appropriate for the negative target. A subsequent test of incidental recall of the target information yielded the predicted interaction between target valence and schema focus (i.e., the positive target was remembered better when compared to the liked-other and the negative target was remembered better when compared to the disliked-other). This difference did not, however, extend to self-focus, which produced equivalent recall of positive and negative targets. The implications of these findings for the self as a unique schema are discussed. o 1989 Academic press. IIIC.
The idea that relating information to oneself enhances its memorability is not new; mnemonists have touted this simple method of improving memory for years. However, since Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker (1977) demonstrated that self-reference produces better incidental recall than linguistic processing tasks (such as semantic and phonemic judgments), the “self-reference effect” has gained a firm hold in the social cognition literature. Rogers et al. used what was at the time a relatively new term-“selfschema” -in their explanation for the facilitative effect of self-reference on recall. The self-schemacan be viewed as a cognitive structure embodying the total of past experience in various domains, organized and developed through repeated categorization of self-relevant information (e.g., see Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Markus & Sentis, 1982; Taylor & Cracker, 1981)-as Markus (1977) put it, “. . . the way the self has been differentiated and articulated in memory” (p. 64). Since much (some would say all) of the information we encounter in life is experienced with respect to the self, the self-schema should be well instantiated, with many associations 22s 0092-6566’89 $3.00 Copyright 0 1989 by Academic Press. Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
226
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
to other schemas. Indeed, Rogers et al. (1977) have suggested that the self-schema is superior to all others by virtue of its unique degree of complexity and centrality-in essence, functioning as a “superordinate schema” (see also Rogers, 1982). Research in this area has tended to support their claim (Alicke, Klotz, & Schopler, 1985; Kendzierski, 1980; Kuiper & Rogers, 1979; Lord, 1980). Lord (1980), for example, found that having subjects judge whether or not traits were self-descriptive led to better recall than having them make similar judgments about their fathers or Walter Cronkite. Similar results have been obtained when the “other” was a typical dormitory advisor (Alicke et al., 1985) and a graduate student experimenter (Kuiper 8z Rogers, 1979). Studies in this area typically have used personality traits as stimuli; subjects are asked to judge whether traits are descriptive of themselves or various targets and then tested for incidental recall of the traits. In this type of task subjects are not being asked to process and learn new material, but rather to access existing knowledge (Alicke et al., 1985; Rogers, 1977). Thus, the fact that self-reference usually leads to better recall of traits may mean simply that subjects know more about their own characteristics than about those of other people (Bower & Gilligan, 1979). This hypothesis is supported by studies showing that reference to wellknown others can be as effective as self-reference for this type of task. Kuiper and Rogers (1979) found that although self-reference produced better recall than reference to an unknown experimenter, recall was equivalent when the experimenter was someone the subjects knew. Similarly, Bower and Gilligan (1979) found that while subjects who rated the descriptiveness of traits with Walter Cronkite as the target recalled significantly fewer traits than did subjects making trait judgments about themselves or their mothers, recall associated with the latter two targets did not differ. These results suggest that people provide better retrieval cues than do abstract linguistic processing tasks, and the more familiar the person is, the greater the wealth of schematic associations available as memory cues (Bellezza, 1984). Thus, Bower and Gilligan (1979) suggest that the self-schema may be efficacious due to its status as a highly familiar person-schema rather than to any inherent unique features. The question of the relative efficacy of self- and other schemas remains to be resolved. However, the trait judgment methodology employed in previous studies may not be the best means of addressing this issue. As noted previously, the trait rating task accesses preexisting schema content and does not require that new information be processed. The relevant schema is used passively as a matching standard. If, on the other hand, subjects were asked to evaluate information about some unknown person
APPROPRIATENESS
AND
RECALL
227
using a particular schema, they would be forced to organize and process the new information. In this case, the effects of different schemas on actual information processing could be assessed. The use of a person evaluation task would also enable us to investigate an alternative explanation for the effects of self- and other-reference on information processing-that recall is enhanced by schematic reference to the extent that the schema is appropriate for the information being processed. The self-schema may be particularly well-suited for judgments about personality traits (Bellezza, 19&t), thereby facilitating recall. Schemas for other people, especially those who are well-known, may also serve this function well. However, a mismatch between schemaand information may hamper effective processing, resulting in an attenuation of recall. The present study teststhis hypothesis by manipulating the appropriateness of the processing schema.’ In a previous study that used a person evaluation task, Alicke et al. (1985) tested the hypothesis that the appropriateness of a schema for an information processing task would influence recall by manipulating both reference target (self or typical dormitory advisor) and processing task (evaluate the speaker’s personality or ability as a dormitory advisor). Contrary to their prediction that self-reference would work best for personality judgments and other-reference best for judgments of ability, they found only a main effect of target reference-self-reference led to better recall than other-reference regardless of the processing task. However, the authors suggested that their use of an abstract other-reference target (“typical” dormitory advisor) may have led to attenuated recall in that condition. In addition, the characteristics of dormitory advisors are such that personality and ability may have been confounded (the qualities that make an able dorm advisor may be personality traits). In the present study we manipulated schema appropriateness by asking subjects to evaluate a positive or negative target, comparing her either to themselves or to someone they knew well and liked or knew well and disliked. We reasoned that a liked-other would be viewed positively, providing an appropriate schema for evaluating the positive target, but not the negative target, while the disliked other would be viewed negatively, providing an appropriate schema for the negative but not the positive ’ Many studies using the self-reference methodology have included both positive and negative traits, and it might be argued that such a manipulation constitutes a test of the schema-appropriateness hypothesis, given that the self-schema is likely to be more appropriate for positive than negative traits. However, in these self-reference studies the self-schema was not used to process new information (for which it might or might not have been appropriate), but rather to provide a comparison standard for judging the self-descriptiveness of traits (for which it was the only appropriate schema). Self-reference studies, therefore, do not provide a test of the importance of schema appropriateness.
228
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
target. A similar hypothesis was tested by Ferguson, Rule, and Carlson (1983) using a personality trait judgment task. They hypothesized that recall for positive and negative traits judged for their descriptiveness of the self, a liked-other, a disliked-other, or a neutral other person would be best when positive traits were judged for their descriptiveness of the self and a liked-other and negative traits were judged for a disliked-other. Instead, they found that traits judged for self-descriptivenesswere recalled significantly better than traits judged for their descriptiveness of a likedor disliked-other person, with no difference between the latter for positive and negative traits. However, as Ferguson et al. observed in their discussion of the study, these results may not generalize beyond the trait rating task to situations in which individuals actively employ schemasto organize complex information. Two hypotheses were considered in the present study. First, previous research suggested that we would obtain a main effect for schema focus, with self-focus leading to better recall than other-focus. However, an argument could also be made for the absence of a main effect since the schema for other-focus would in this case represent someone the subject knew well (Bower & Gilligan, 1979; Rogers et al., 1977). Second, we predicted an interaction between target valence and schema focus, supporting the hypothesis that memory would be enhanced when the focus schemas were appropriate for the targets (based on valence). In other words, we expected that a positive target would be remembered better when associated with a self- or liked-other schemafocus, while a negative target would be remembered better when associated with a disliked-other schema focus. METHOD Development
of Target Presentations
Four lists of 18 statements were prepared, which would serve as the basis for the targetperson presentations. Each statement provided information about a hypothetical person (Jane), including demographic data (e.g., “Jane is 19 years old.“) and behavior statements that were relevant to personality characteristics (“Jane is shy around groups.“). Ten statements, chosen to be representative of an average undergraduate, were the same on all four lists (e.g., “Jane is 19 years old and a sophomore in college.“). The other eight statements constituted positivity/negativity (target valence) and introversion/extraversion manipulations2 (e.g., “Jane is very active in the Journalism Club and she was elected Treasurer this semester.” [positive]; “Jane is very active in the Journalism Club but will quit if not elected President this year.” [negative]). The lists were designed to be equivalent with respect to the proportion of positive or negative and introverted or extraverted items they contained.
* In addition to target valence, target introversion/extraversion (target schema) was manipulated to address a separate issue, which is not discussed here.
APPROPRIATENESS
AND
RECALL
229
The item lists were evaluated by 50 subjects as to the degree of positivity or negativity represented by each characteristic. A comparison of positive/negative composite scores computed for each of the attribute lists indicated that overall these characteristics were perceived in the desired manner, i.e., the positive lists were seen as more positive than the negative lists, F(1, 49) = 15.80, p < 8002. Analyses of the individual items showed that for five of the six items used to manipulate valence, the positive items were rated as significantly more positive than the negative items; for the sixth item the difference was marginally significant. Scripts were prepared from these lists to simulate a student responding to a request to “Tell us a little bit about yourself.” Each script contained both neutral information (which appeared in all four scripts) and a unique combination of positive or negative and introverted or extraverted information. For example, all four scripts used the same family background (neutral information) but the extraverted-positive script said that the target planned to run for treasurer of her club, while the extraverted-negative script said she planned to quit the club if she were not elected president. Scripts were recorded on audio cassette tapes by a female student and lasted from 2.5 to 2.6 min each.
Subjects Subjects were 176 female’ undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large southeastern state university, who participated in partial fulfillment of a course requirement.
Procedure Subjects participated in groups of four to nine in what was portrayed as “a study of the way people present information about themselves and understand information about others.” Subjects were asked to listen to a tape-recording of another student, Jane, describing herself. Written instructions for this task provided the schema focus manipulation. All subjects within a session heard the same description (and therefore were exposed to the same level of target valence). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three schema focus conditions (self, liked-other, or disliked-other). Subjects in the self-schema focus condition were asked to think about how similar the speaker was to them while they listened to the tape-recorded presentation. In the liked-other schema focus condition, subjects were asked to write the initials of someone they knew well and liked, and to think about how similar the speaker was to that person while listening to the tape; subjects in the disliked-other schema focus condition were asked to write the initials of someone they knew well and disliked and compare the speaker to that person. Both the liked- and disliked-other were further restricted to a person of the same sex as the subject.
3 The use of all female subjects restricts the generalizability of our results. However, the inclusion of male subjects would have introduced an undesirable complication into the study. Subjects were restricted to making same-sex comparisons in order to minimize irrelevant differences between comparison standards (i.e., a female liked-other might be a more appropriate comparison standard for a female target than a male liked-other would be). Therefore, the use of male subjects would have necessitated mate targets that were equivalent to the female targets in both their information content and their degree of positivity or negativity. Failure to achieve equivalence between male and female targets would pose a threat to the internal validity of the study, which we considered a more serious problem than the external validity issue of restricting our sample to women (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
230
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
To ensure that subjects stayed on-task while listening to the tape-recording, four 7-point rating scales (the speaker’s similarity to the focus object with respect to background, school experience, hobbies and interests, and personality) were included on the instruction form, and subjects were directed to keep those four judgments in mind during the task. After listening to the tape, subjects completed these four similarity ratings. Subjects then evaluated the target on a series of 30 traits, 15 of which were positive and 15 negative, using a 9-point scale (“To what extent was Jane -?” where 1 = “not at all” and 9 = “very much”). A distractor task was interpolated at this point; subjects were given a list of words and asked to use them to write a story about Abraham Lincoln. This task, which lasted 10 mitt, was chosen to be involving without causing subjects to become self-focused. Subjects then were given a blank sheet of paper and asked to list every “fact” they could recall from the tape-recording. Accuracy of reproduction was stressed (i.e., subjects were asked to try to recall the information in its original form rather than paraphrasing). Eight minutes were allowed for this task; pilot testing had shown that virtually all subjects were finished by this time. Finally, subjects rated the degree to which the target was similar to themselves, to someone they knew well and liked, to someone they knew well and disliked, and to the typical undergraduate. They were then debriefed and given credit for their participation.
RESULTS Manipulation
Checks
Subjects’ ratings of the target on the trait adjectives provided a check of the target valence manipulation. Mean scores were computed across the target ratings for positive and negative traits, and separate analyses of variance were performed. Results indicated that the target manipulations were successful. Target valence main effects were obtained for both positive traits, F(1, 164) = 45.64, p < JO01 (M = 6.38 and 5.91 for the positive and negative targets), and negative traits, F(1, 164) = 24.03, p < JO01 (M = 3.79 and 4.56 for the positive and negative targets), indicating that the positive and negative targets were perceived appropriately; i.e., positive targets were rated more positively on positive traits and less negatively on negative traits. Additionally, ratings of the similarity of the target to the self, likedother, and disliked-other indicated that subjects perceived the positive target to be more similar than the negative target to both their likedother, F(1, 162) = 6.94, p < .Ol, and themselves, F(1, 163) = 14.53, p < .OOl, and the negative target more similar to the disliked-other, F(l) 163) = 7.38, p < .Ol. However, no differences were found in ratings of the target’s similiarity to the typical undergraduate student. Recall
Recall was scored using a detailed coding system in which one point was awarded for each discrete bit of information (total possible points = 65), with separate coding for “neutral” items that appeared on all lists (neutral recall, n = 41) and items specific to each list (schematic
APPROPRIATENESS
AND
RECALL
231
recall, n = 24), to allow a more detailed analysis of recall pattems.4 Recall means are presented in Table 1.’ Separate analyses of variance were performed on recall of neutral and schema-relevant information. Recall totals for neutral information were equivalent across all conditions, with no effects approaching significance. The analysis of recall of schematic information showed the predicted Target Valence x Schema Focus interaction, F(2, 164) = 5.17, p < .007. Simple effects tests revealed that liked-other focus produced significantly better recall of positive targets than negative targets (t(57) = 2.31, p < .03), while the opposite was true for disliked-other focus (t(56) = 1.69, p < .05). Self-focus produced equivalent recall with both positive and negative targets. Furthermore, self-focused recall was equivalent to likedother (and disliked-other) focused recall with the positive targets, and to disliked-other focused recall with the negative targets. The main effect for schema focus was not significant, F(2, 164) = 1.09, p < .34. DISCUSSION
As predicted, the effect of schema focus on recall was mediated by its match with the target information to be processed. Comparing the target to a disliked-other produced better recall when the target was negative rather than positive, while better recall of positive target information was associated with reference to a liked-other schema. This pattern supports the hypothesis that the appropriateness of the schema for the information being processed is important. Furthermore, appropriateness appeared to be an important factor for the schema-relevant information only; no significant differences were obtained for recall of neutral information. This suggests that perhaps any person schema will do equally well for generic person information, while recall of more distinctive details is linked to use of an appropriate organizational structure. While the efficacy of the other-person schema depended on the schemainformation match, these constraints did not apply to the self-schema. Unlike the liked- and disliked-other schemas,the self-schema was equally effective for both the positive and negative targets. Assuming that most people maintain fairly positive conceptions of themselves, we anticipated that the self-schema would work better with positive than negative information. The ability of the self to facilitate organization of both positive 4 Because the coding system was quite detailed it was possible for subjects to receive partial credit for items that were incompletely recalled. Therefore, use of an additional “lenient” coding scheme was unnecessary. 5 The schematic information differed across targets with respect to introversion/extraversion (target schema) as well as positivity/negativity (target valence). However, target schema had no significant effect on recall and is not discussed here.
232
KLOTZ
AND
TABLE MEAN
RECALL
OF NEUTRAL
ALICKE
1
AND SCHEMA-RELEVANT
INFORMATION
Schema focus Target valence
Self
Positive Negative
7.66* 8.97,
Positive Negative
19.45 17.77
Likedother
Dislikedother
Relevant information 8.66, 6.83,,
6.82b 8.17,
Neutral information 17.66 17.17
17.07 16.63
Note. Means that share a common letter do not differ significantly.
and negative information may reflect a unique capacity of the self. The self-schema may be appropriate for most situations, although it may not be superior to other appropriate schemas. A second interpretation of these results is possible. The ability of the self to facilitate organization of both positive and negative information could reflect the incorporation of both positive and negative characteristics into the self-schema. However, previous research using the trait endorsement technique has typically found a higher endorsement rate for positive than negative traits (Brown & Taylor, 1986; Ferguson et al., 1983; Kuiper, Olinger, MacDonald, & Shaw, 1985; Lord, 1980). Additionally, indirect evidence against the hypothesis is provided by our subjects’ self-ratings on a series of bipolar trait adjectives (used to identify subjects as introverts or extraverts). Ratings for 15 of the 18 adjective pairs were skewed toward the more positive trait. For the remaining three trait pairs (noisy/quiet, cautious/impulsive, and boisterous/softspoken) the median and modal responses were the scale midpoint (5). Apparently, subjects’ self-schemas are not balanced with respect to positive and negative attributes (see also Alicke, 1985). Alternatively, it may be that in comparing others to the self, individuals have often had occasion to reflect on negative characteristics they do not possess (e.g., “I’m glad I’m not -like so-and-so.“). To the extent that individuals are more likely to compare others to themselves rather than making other to other comparisons, the self-schema should contain more of these “negative references” than schemas for other persons. This interpretation would also reflect a unique capacity of the self-schema. A number of studies have demonstrated that the self-schema is not uniquely efficacious for all types of information processing tasks (Brown, Keenan, & Potts, 1986; Keenan & Baillet, 1980; Lord, 1980; Maki & McCaul, 1985), leading some researchers to voice doubt as to the superiority
APPROPRIATENESSAND RECALL
233
of the self-schema over other types of highly familiar person schemas. Our results provide further evidence against the superiority of the selfschema. In some cases schemas for well-known others functioned as well as the self-schema in facilitating recall of information. However, the facilitative effect of other person schemas was limited by the appropriateness of the schema for the information. No such restriction applied to the self-schema. Therefore, we believe that a distinction should be made between the superiority of the self-schema and its uniqueness as a processing structure. REFERENCES Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1032-1041. Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., & Schopler, J. (1985). Relative efficacy of diierent encoding structures and judgment topics in a cued-recall task. Journal ofResearch in Person&y,
19, 261-270. Bellezza, F. S. (1984). The self as a mnemonic device: The role of internal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 506-516. Bower, G. H., & Gilligan, S. G. (1979). Remembering information related to one’s self. Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
37, 420-432.
Brown, J. D., & Taylor, S. E. (1986). Affect and the processing of personal information: Evidence for mood-activated self-schemata. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 436-452. Brown, P., Keenan, J. M., & Potts, G. R. (1986). The self-reference effect with imagery encoding. Journal of Personalby and Social Psychology, 51, 897-906. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for jeld settings. Boston: Houghton-MifIIin. Ferguson, T. J., Rule, B. G., & Carlson, D. (1983). Memory for personally relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 251-261. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Keenan, J. M., & Baillet, S. D. (1980). Memory for personally and socially significant events. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Aftention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 651699). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kendzierski, D. (1980). Self-schemata and scripts: The recall of self-referent and scriptal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 23-29. Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., MacDonald, M. R., & Shaw, B. F. (1985). Self-schema processing of depressed and nondepressed content. Social Cognition, 3, 77-93. Kuiper, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). The encoding of personal information: Self-other differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 499-514. Lord, C. G. (1980). Schemas and images as memory aids: Two modes of processing social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 257-269. Maki, R. H., & McCaul, K. D. (1985). The effects of self-versus other-reference on the recall of traits and norms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 169-172. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
35, 63-78.
Markus, H., & Sentis, L. (1982). The self in social information processing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogers, T. B. (1977). Self-reference in memory: Recognition of personality items. Journal of Research
in Personality,
11, 295-305.
234
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model of the self as an aspect of the human information processing system. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 193-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. Taylor, S. E., & Cracker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. I, pp. 89-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
23,
225-234 (1989)
The Effects of Schema Appropriateness on Recall M. L. KLOTZ AND MARK D. ALICKE University of Florida This study tested the hypothesis that the efficacy of a person-schema as an information processing structure will depend on the appropriateness of the schema for the information (i.e., how well the schema fits the information). We manipulated schema appropriateness by asking subjects to evaluate a positive or negative target (target valence), while comparing her either to themselves, or to someone they knew well and liked, or knew well and disliked (schema focus). We hypothesized that the self and the liked-other would be appropriate schemas for the positive target, while the disliked-other would be appropriate for the negative target. A subsequent test of incidental recall of the target information yielded the predicted interaction between target valence and schema focus (i.e., the positive target was remembered better when compared to the liked-other and the negative target was remembered better when compared to the disliked-other). This difference did not, however, extend to self-focus, which produced equivalent recall of positive and negative targets. The implications of these findings for the self as a unique schema are discussed. o 1989 Academic press. IIIC.
The idea that relating information to oneself enhances its memorability is not new; mnemonists have touted this simple method of improving memory for years. However, since Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker (1977) demonstrated that self-reference produces better incidental recall than linguistic processing tasks (such as semantic and phonemic judgments), the “self-reference effect” has gained a firm hold in the social cognition literature. Rogers et al. used what was at the time a relatively new term-“selfschema” -in their explanation for the facilitative effect of self-reference on recall. The self-schemacan be viewed as a cognitive structure embodying the total of past experience in various domains, organized and developed through repeated categorization of self-relevant information (e.g., see Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Markus & Sentis, 1982; Taylor & Cracker, 1981)-as Markus (1977) put it, “. . . the way the self has been differentiated and articulated in memory” (p. 64). Since much (some would say all) of the information we encounter in life is experienced with respect to the self, the self-schema should be well instantiated, with many associations 22s 0092-6566’89 $3.00 Copyright 0 1989 by Academic Press. Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
226
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
to other schemas. Indeed, Rogers et al. (1977) have suggested that the self-schema is superior to all others by virtue of its unique degree of complexity and centrality-in essence, functioning as a “superordinate schema” (see also Rogers, 1982). Research in this area has tended to support their claim (Alicke, Klotz, & Schopler, 1985; Kendzierski, 1980; Kuiper & Rogers, 1979; Lord, 1980). Lord (1980), for example, found that having subjects judge whether or not traits were self-descriptive led to better recall than having them make similar judgments about their fathers or Walter Cronkite. Similar results have been obtained when the “other” was a typical dormitory advisor (Alicke et al., 1985) and a graduate student experimenter (Kuiper 8z Rogers, 1979). Studies in this area typically have used personality traits as stimuli; subjects are asked to judge whether traits are descriptive of themselves or various targets and then tested for incidental recall of the traits. In this type of task subjects are not being asked to process and learn new material, but rather to access existing knowledge (Alicke et al., 1985; Rogers, 1977). Thus, the fact that self-reference usually leads to better recall of traits may mean simply that subjects know more about their own characteristics than about those of other people (Bower & Gilligan, 1979). This hypothesis is supported by studies showing that reference to wellknown others can be as effective as self-reference for this type of task. Kuiper and Rogers (1979) found that although self-reference produced better recall than reference to an unknown experimenter, recall was equivalent when the experimenter was someone the subjects knew. Similarly, Bower and Gilligan (1979) found that while subjects who rated the descriptiveness of traits with Walter Cronkite as the target recalled significantly fewer traits than did subjects making trait judgments about themselves or their mothers, recall associated with the latter two targets did not differ. These results suggest that people provide better retrieval cues than do abstract linguistic processing tasks, and the more familiar the person is, the greater the wealth of schematic associations available as memory cues (Bellezza, 1984). Thus, Bower and Gilligan (1979) suggest that the self-schema may be efficacious due to its status as a highly familiar person-schema rather than to any inherent unique features. The question of the relative efficacy of self- and other schemas remains to be resolved. However, the trait judgment methodology employed in previous studies may not be the best means of addressing this issue. As noted previously, the trait rating task accesses preexisting schema content and does not require that new information be processed. The relevant schema is used passively as a matching standard. If, on the other hand, subjects were asked to evaluate information about some unknown person
APPROPRIATENESS
AND
RECALL
227
using a particular schema, they would be forced to organize and process the new information. In this case, the effects of different schemas on actual information processing could be assessed. The use of a person evaluation task would also enable us to investigate an alternative explanation for the effects of self- and other-reference on information processing-that recall is enhanced by schematic reference to the extent that the schema is appropriate for the information being processed. The self-schema may be particularly well-suited for judgments about personality traits (Bellezza, 19&t), thereby facilitating recall. Schemas for other people, especially those who are well-known, may also serve this function well. However, a mismatch between schemaand information may hamper effective processing, resulting in an attenuation of recall. The present study teststhis hypothesis by manipulating the appropriateness of the processing schema.’ In a previous study that used a person evaluation task, Alicke et al. (1985) tested the hypothesis that the appropriateness of a schema for an information processing task would influence recall by manipulating both reference target (self or typical dormitory advisor) and processing task (evaluate the speaker’s personality or ability as a dormitory advisor). Contrary to their prediction that self-reference would work best for personality judgments and other-reference best for judgments of ability, they found only a main effect of target reference-self-reference led to better recall than other-reference regardless of the processing task. However, the authors suggested that their use of an abstract other-reference target (“typical” dormitory advisor) may have led to attenuated recall in that condition. In addition, the characteristics of dormitory advisors are such that personality and ability may have been confounded (the qualities that make an able dorm advisor may be personality traits). In the present study we manipulated schema appropriateness by asking subjects to evaluate a positive or negative target, comparing her either to themselves or to someone they knew well and liked or knew well and disliked. We reasoned that a liked-other would be viewed positively, providing an appropriate schema for evaluating the positive target, but not the negative target, while the disliked other would be viewed negatively, providing an appropriate schema for the negative but not the positive ’ Many studies using the self-reference methodology have included both positive and negative traits, and it might be argued that such a manipulation constitutes a test of the schema-appropriateness hypothesis, given that the self-schema is likely to be more appropriate for positive than negative traits. However, in these self-reference studies the self-schema was not used to process new information (for which it might or might not have been appropriate), but rather to provide a comparison standard for judging the self-descriptiveness of traits (for which it was the only appropriate schema). Self-reference studies, therefore, do not provide a test of the importance of schema appropriateness.
228
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
target. A similar hypothesis was tested by Ferguson, Rule, and Carlson (1983) using a personality trait judgment task. They hypothesized that recall for positive and negative traits judged for their descriptiveness of the self, a liked-other, a disliked-other, or a neutral other person would be best when positive traits were judged for their descriptiveness of the self and a liked-other and negative traits were judged for a disliked-other. Instead, they found that traits judged for self-descriptivenesswere recalled significantly better than traits judged for their descriptiveness of a likedor disliked-other person, with no difference between the latter for positive and negative traits. However, as Ferguson et al. observed in their discussion of the study, these results may not generalize beyond the trait rating task to situations in which individuals actively employ schemasto organize complex information. Two hypotheses were considered in the present study. First, previous research suggested that we would obtain a main effect for schema focus, with self-focus leading to better recall than other-focus. However, an argument could also be made for the absence of a main effect since the schema for other-focus would in this case represent someone the subject knew well (Bower & Gilligan, 1979; Rogers et al., 1977). Second, we predicted an interaction between target valence and schema focus, supporting the hypothesis that memory would be enhanced when the focus schemas were appropriate for the targets (based on valence). In other words, we expected that a positive target would be remembered better when associated with a self- or liked-other schemafocus, while a negative target would be remembered better when associated with a disliked-other schema focus. METHOD Development
of Target Presentations
Four lists of 18 statements were prepared, which would serve as the basis for the targetperson presentations. Each statement provided information about a hypothetical person (Jane), including demographic data (e.g., “Jane is 19 years old.“) and behavior statements that were relevant to personality characteristics (“Jane is shy around groups.“). Ten statements, chosen to be representative of an average undergraduate, were the same on all four lists (e.g., “Jane is 19 years old and a sophomore in college.“). The other eight statements constituted positivity/negativity (target valence) and introversion/extraversion manipulations2 (e.g., “Jane is very active in the Journalism Club and she was elected Treasurer this semester.” [positive]; “Jane is very active in the Journalism Club but will quit if not elected President this year.” [negative]). The lists were designed to be equivalent with respect to the proportion of positive or negative and introverted or extraverted items they contained.
* In addition to target valence, target introversion/extraversion (target schema) was manipulated to address a separate issue, which is not discussed here.
APPROPRIATENESS
AND
RECALL
229
The item lists were evaluated by 50 subjects as to the degree of positivity or negativity represented by each characteristic. A comparison of positive/negative composite scores computed for each of the attribute lists indicated that overall these characteristics were perceived in the desired manner, i.e., the positive lists were seen as more positive than the negative lists, F(1, 49) = 15.80, p < 8002. Analyses of the individual items showed that for five of the six items used to manipulate valence, the positive items were rated as significantly more positive than the negative items; for the sixth item the difference was marginally significant. Scripts were prepared from these lists to simulate a student responding to a request to “Tell us a little bit about yourself.” Each script contained both neutral information (which appeared in all four scripts) and a unique combination of positive or negative and introverted or extraverted information. For example, all four scripts used the same family background (neutral information) but the extraverted-positive script said that the target planned to run for treasurer of her club, while the extraverted-negative script said she planned to quit the club if she were not elected president. Scripts were recorded on audio cassette tapes by a female student and lasted from 2.5 to 2.6 min each.
Subjects Subjects were 176 female’ undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a large southeastern state university, who participated in partial fulfillment of a course requirement.
Procedure Subjects participated in groups of four to nine in what was portrayed as “a study of the way people present information about themselves and understand information about others.” Subjects were asked to listen to a tape-recording of another student, Jane, describing herself. Written instructions for this task provided the schema focus manipulation. All subjects within a session heard the same description (and therefore were exposed to the same level of target valence). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three schema focus conditions (self, liked-other, or disliked-other). Subjects in the self-schema focus condition were asked to think about how similar the speaker was to them while they listened to the tape-recorded presentation. In the liked-other schema focus condition, subjects were asked to write the initials of someone they knew well and liked, and to think about how similar the speaker was to that person while listening to the tape; subjects in the disliked-other schema focus condition were asked to write the initials of someone they knew well and disliked and compare the speaker to that person. Both the liked- and disliked-other were further restricted to a person of the same sex as the subject.
3 The use of all female subjects restricts the generalizability of our results. However, the inclusion of male subjects would have introduced an undesirable complication into the study. Subjects were restricted to making same-sex comparisons in order to minimize irrelevant differences between comparison standards (i.e., a female liked-other might be a more appropriate comparison standard for a female target than a male liked-other would be). Therefore, the use of male subjects would have necessitated mate targets that were equivalent to the female targets in both their information content and their degree of positivity or negativity. Failure to achieve equivalence between male and female targets would pose a threat to the internal validity of the study, which we considered a more serious problem than the external validity issue of restricting our sample to women (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
230
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
To ensure that subjects stayed on-task while listening to the tape-recording, four 7-point rating scales (the speaker’s similarity to the focus object with respect to background, school experience, hobbies and interests, and personality) were included on the instruction form, and subjects were directed to keep those four judgments in mind during the task. After listening to the tape, subjects completed these four similarity ratings. Subjects then evaluated the target on a series of 30 traits, 15 of which were positive and 15 negative, using a 9-point scale (“To what extent was Jane -?” where 1 = “not at all” and 9 = “very much”). A distractor task was interpolated at this point; subjects were given a list of words and asked to use them to write a story about Abraham Lincoln. This task, which lasted 10 mitt, was chosen to be involving without causing subjects to become self-focused. Subjects then were given a blank sheet of paper and asked to list every “fact” they could recall from the tape-recording. Accuracy of reproduction was stressed (i.e., subjects were asked to try to recall the information in its original form rather than paraphrasing). Eight minutes were allowed for this task; pilot testing had shown that virtually all subjects were finished by this time. Finally, subjects rated the degree to which the target was similar to themselves, to someone they knew well and liked, to someone they knew well and disliked, and to the typical undergraduate. They were then debriefed and given credit for their participation.
RESULTS Manipulation
Checks
Subjects’ ratings of the target on the trait adjectives provided a check of the target valence manipulation. Mean scores were computed across the target ratings for positive and negative traits, and separate analyses of variance were performed. Results indicated that the target manipulations were successful. Target valence main effects were obtained for both positive traits, F(1, 164) = 45.64, p < JO01 (M = 6.38 and 5.91 for the positive and negative targets), and negative traits, F(1, 164) = 24.03, p < JO01 (M = 3.79 and 4.56 for the positive and negative targets), indicating that the positive and negative targets were perceived appropriately; i.e., positive targets were rated more positively on positive traits and less negatively on negative traits. Additionally, ratings of the similarity of the target to the self, likedother, and disliked-other indicated that subjects perceived the positive target to be more similar than the negative target to both their likedother, F(1, 162) = 6.94, p < .Ol, and themselves, F(1, 163) = 14.53, p < .OOl, and the negative target more similar to the disliked-other, F(l) 163) = 7.38, p < .Ol. However, no differences were found in ratings of the target’s similiarity to the typical undergraduate student. Recall
Recall was scored using a detailed coding system in which one point was awarded for each discrete bit of information (total possible points = 65), with separate coding for “neutral” items that appeared on all lists (neutral recall, n = 41) and items specific to each list (schematic
APPROPRIATENESS
AND
RECALL
231
recall, n = 24), to allow a more detailed analysis of recall pattems.4 Recall means are presented in Table 1.’ Separate analyses of variance were performed on recall of neutral and schema-relevant information. Recall totals for neutral information were equivalent across all conditions, with no effects approaching significance. The analysis of recall of schematic information showed the predicted Target Valence x Schema Focus interaction, F(2, 164) = 5.17, p < .007. Simple effects tests revealed that liked-other focus produced significantly better recall of positive targets than negative targets (t(57) = 2.31, p < .03), while the opposite was true for disliked-other focus (t(56) = 1.69, p < .05). Self-focus produced equivalent recall with both positive and negative targets. Furthermore, self-focused recall was equivalent to likedother (and disliked-other) focused recall with the positive targets, and to disliked-other focused recall with the negative targets. The main effect for schema focus was not significant, F(2, 164) = 1.09, p < .34. DISCUSSION
As predicted, the effect of schema focus on recall was mediated by its match with the target information to be processed. Comparing the target to a disliked-other produced better recall when the target was negative rather than positive, while better recall of positive target information was associated with reference to a liked-other schema. This pattern supports the hypothesis that the appropriateness of the schema for the information being processed is important. Furthermore, appropriateness appeared to be an important factor for the schema-relevant information only; no significant differences were obtained for recall of neutral information. This suggests that perhaps any person schema will do equally well for generic person information, while recall of more distinctive details is linked to use of an appropriate organizational structure. While the efficacy of the other-person schema depended on the schemainformation match, these constraints did not apply to the self-schema. Unlike the liked- and disliked-other schemas,the self-schema was equally effective for both the positive and negative targets. Assuming that most people maintain fairly positive conceptions of themselves, we anticipated that the self-schema would work better with positive than negative information. The ability of the self to facilitate organization of both positive 4 Because the coding system was quite detailed it was possible for subjects to receive partial credit for items that were incompletely recalled. Therefore, use of an additional “lenient” coding scheme was unnecessary. 5 The schematic information differed across targets with respect to introversion/extraversion (target schema) as well as positivity/negativity (target valence). However, target schema had no significant effect on recall and is not discussed here.
232
KLOTZ
AND
TABLE MEAN
RECALL
OF NEUTRAL
ALICKE
1
AND SCHEMA-RELEVANT
INFORMATION
Schema focus Target valence
Self
Positive Negative
7.66* 8.97,
Positive Negative
19.45 17.77
Likedother
Dislikedother
Relevant information 8.66, 6.83,,
6.82b 8.17,
Neutral information 17.66 17.17
17.07 16.63
Note. Means that share a common letter do not differ significantly.
and negative information may reflect a unique capacity of the self. The self-schema may be appropriate for most situations, although it may not be superior to other appropriate schemas. A second interpretation of these results is possible. The ability of the self to facilitate organization of both positive and negative information could reflect the incorporation of both positive and negative characteristics into the self-schema. However, previous research using the trait endorsement technique has typically found a higher endorsement rate for positive than negative traits (Brown & Taylor, 1986; Ferguson et al., 1983; Kuiper, Olinger, MacDonald, & Shaw, 1985; Lord, 1980). Additionally, indirect evidence against the hypothesis is provided by our subjects’ self-ratings on a series of bipolar trait adjectives (used to identify subjects as introverts or extraverts). Ratings for 15 of the 18 adjective pairs were skewed toward the more positive trait. For the remaining three trait pairs (noisy/quiet, cautious/impulsive, and boisterous/softspoken) the median and modal responses were the scale midpoint (5). Apparently, subjects’ self-schemas are not balanced with respect to positive and negative attributes (see also Alicke, 1985). Alternatively, it may be that in comparing others to the self, individuals have often had occasion to reflect on negative characteristics they do not possess (e.g., “I’m glad I’m not -like so-and-so.“). To the extent that individuals are more likely to compare others to themselves rather than making other to other comparisons, the self-schema should contain more of these “negative references” than schemas for other persons. This interpretation would also reflect a unique capacity of the self-schema. A number of studies have demonstrated that the self-schema is not uniquely efficacious for all types of information processing tasks (Brown, Keenan, & Potts, 1986; Keenan & Baillet, 1980; Lord, 1980; Maki & McCaul, 1985), leading some researchers to voice doubt as to the superiority
APPROPRIATENESSAND RECALL
233
of the self-schema over other types of highly familiar person schemas. Our results provide further evidence against the superiority of the selfschema. In some cases schemas for well-known others functioned as well as the self-schema in facilitating recall of information. However, the facilitative effect of other person schemas was limited by the appropriateness of the schema for the information. No such restriction applied to the self-schema. Therefore, we believe that a distinction should be made between the superiority of the self-schema and its uniqueness as a processing structure. REFERENCES Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1032-1041. Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., & Schopler, J. (1985). Relative efficacy of diierent encoding structures and judgment topics in a cued-recall task. Journal ofResearch in Person&y,
19, 261-270. Bellezza, F. S. (1984). The self as a mnemonic device: The role of internal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 506-516. Bower, G. H., & Gilligan, S. G. (1979). Remembering information related to one’s self. Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
37, 420-432.
Brown, J. D., & Taylor, S. E. (1986). Affect and the processing of personal information: Evidence for mood-activated self-schemata. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 436-452. Brown, P., Keenan, J. M., & Potts, G. R. (1986). The self-reference effect with imagery encoding. Journal of Personalby and Social Psychology, 51, 897-906. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for jeld settings. Boston: Houghton-MifIIin. Ferguson, T. J., Rule, B. G., & Carlson, D. (1983). Memory for personally relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 251-261. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Keenan, J. M., & Baillet, S. D. (1980). Memory for personally and socially significant events. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Aftention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 651699). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kendzierski, D. (1980). Self-schemata and scripts: The recall of self-referent and scriptal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 23-29. Kuiper, N. A., Olinger, L. J., MacDonald, M. R., & Shaw, B. F. (1985). Self-schema processing of depressed and nondepressed content. Social Cognition, 3, 77-93. Kuiper, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). The encoding of personal information: Self-other differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 499-514. Lord, C. G. (1980). Schemas and images as memory aids: Two modes of processing social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 257-269. Maki, R. H., & McCaul, K. D. (1985). The effects of self-versus other-reference on the recall of traits and norms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 169-172. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
35, 63-78.
Markus, H., & Sentis, L. (1982). The self in social information processing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogers, T. B. (1977). Self-reference in memory: Recognition of personality items. Journal of Research
in Personality,
11, 295-305.
234
KLOTZ
AND
ALICKE
Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model of the self as an aspect of the human information processing system. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 193-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. Taylor, S. E., & Cracker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. I, pp. 89-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.