User:SAHEM/sandbox

=The Revelation Effect=

The Revelation Effect is the increased likelihood of remembering an item has been seen before, or an event having occurred, if they have been manipulated or revealed in some way. It was coined and discovered by Michael J. Watkins and Zehra F. Peynircioglu in 1990, using a series of controlled recognition memory experiments. In one experiment, participants were shown a list of eight letter words to study. After, they performed a recognition task where some of the words were presented normally or were revealed letter by letter until the word was complete. They found that participants responded more positively towards the revealed words compared to words which were not, thus demonstrating the effect. The Revelation Effect is a phenomenon of memory which only occurs through the process of remembering.

Recognition Tasks
Recognition tasks, in particular, old-new recognition tasks, are the most common method used for finding the Revelation Effect. This involves showing participants a list of items such as words, to remember during a study phase. The next stage, known as the test phase, involves half the items from the study phase being removed, and an equal number of new items (lures) being introduced, along with the remaining old items (targets). It is during this phase that participants will be asked to identify, using a yes or no response, as to whether the item appeared in the study phase. However, half of the items, including old and new, are either presented normally (intact e.g. elephant), or in the form of an interpolated task (revealed condition), to be performed by participants, before it is revealed (e.g. solving an anagram epelhant). If a significant number of yes responses are made in the revealed condition compared to the intact condition, regardless of whether they are old or new items, a Revelation Effect is said to have occurred.

Frequency Judgments
The Revelation Effect can also be found using another technique in the form of Frequency Judgment tasks. Bornstein and Neely (2001) required participants to estimate the number of times the test words featured, prior to the test phase (they appeared either one, two, four, or eight times). The revealed condition involved half of the participants taking part in a task where they had to complete a word fragment, before being asked to estimate how many times the word appeared before. They found that participants were more likely to make higher frequency judgments in this condition compared to participants who was shown intact words.

Verbal
A variety of presentations of verbal stimuli has been used for the revealed conditions, where a Revelation Effect has been found. This includes solving anagrams, completing word fragments, and rotating stimuli. An effect can also be found when the revealed task doesn’t involve the test word. For example, showing participants an anagram of RAINDROP (RINADRPO), followed by making a judgment on the test word of VINEYARD. The Revelation Effect has also been found when using numbers as the stimuli, where participants were required to convert Roman numerals into Arabic, prior to making a judgment. Another study has also found the effect when participants were asked to solve a maths equation, and then conclude whether the answer appeared in the study phase.

Non-Verbal
A Revelation Effect has been claimed to occur when using non-verbal stimuli. Luo (1993), used pictures in an experiment where participants were shown line drawings of animals and objects to remember (such as a house). Half of the participants was then shown the word, letter by letter, H-O-U-S-E, before being asked to make a recognition judgment on the picture during the test phase. Participants in this condition were more likely to state they remembered the test item, compared to those who wasn’t exposed to this condition. However, Bornstein and Wilson (2004) criticised the findings, by claiming that it wasn’t strictly using non-verbal stimuli, has participants could still be encoding the pictures verbally. In response, they found a Revelation Effect using non-verbal stimuli, in the form of a black and white photograph of faces. Where participants were required to make an attractiveness judgment for the interpolated task. However, though they attempted to reduce distinguishable features which may be encoded verbally, such as faces having a ‘big nose’, they did concede that they could never truly eliminate verbal ambiguity.

Theoretical Accounts
Many theories have been put forward in an attempt to explain the Revelation Effect, however, as yet no single account has been found. Due to the complexity of the Revelation Effect, multiple interpretations may be required.

Affirmation Tendency Versus Familiarity
According to the Affirmation Tendency theory, the Revelation Effect occurs due to the revealed task creating a tendency to answer yes to the question of whether they had seen the item before. In competition with this account, is the theory that yes responses occur due to the preceding task inducing a sense of increased familiarity towards the revealed item. Westerman and Greene (1996) tested these theories against one another. They did so by changing the question to ‘Is this word new?’ in the experiment. They postulated that if Affirmation Tendency does explain the effect, participants would be expected to continue to respond yes to revealed items regardless of the question. However, ‘no’ responses became more frequent, compared to words which had no task. The experimenters, therefore, dismissed this theory in favour of familiarity.

Global Matching Model
This theory purports that items presented on a recognition task cause some representations in memory to become activated. The degree to which they are activated is dependent on how similar it is to items in the test phase. The strength of the recognition response is influenced by the total number of representations that have been activated during the study phase. Increased levels of activation should lead to an increased response of recognising the items as old. A Revelation Effect occurs due to the preceding task producing activations in some memory representations, which continue to remain activated after the task. Thus, when participants are required to make a judgment on the test item, this activation then adds to the activation level created for when they are making their decision. Therefore, for the revealed condition, there is a higher total of activation, which makes them more likely to state seeing the item before, hence leading to a Revelation Effect.

Criterion-Flux Hypothesis
The Criterion-Flux Hypothesis states that a Revelation Effect occurs due to the revelation task having an effect on working memory. During the study phase, items remembered are assumed to be stored in working memory. However, when performing a revealed task, this information is thought to be temporarily removed. This leaves participants to rely on default assumptions when making recognition judgments. It is during this stage that the application of a more liberal response criterion is adopted, resulting in an increased chance of false positives for the revealed condition, thus leading to a Revelation Effect. After this, their response criterion returns to normal. Therefore, there is a constant flux in their criteria between task and no task conditions due to this.

Discrepancy-Attribution Hypothesis
The Discrepancy-Attribution Hypothesis states that it is the way in which participants perceive the ease and speed of information processing, known as fluency, which influences their judgment during the recognition task. The preceding task for the revealed condition affects fluency, as it is the discrepancy which arises, between the expected fluency (i.e. perceiving the task as difficult) and actual fluency (i.e. completing the task with ease), which results in being misattributed to familiarity towards the stimulus, thus leading to a Revelation Effect.

Limitations
Investigations exploring the boundaries of the Revelation Effect have found the effect to be limiting to younger adults. When testing older adults (65 years or over), it was theorised that a larger effect would be found due to an increased susceptibility in memory illusions as we get older. However, a reverse effect was found in this population, in that they were less likely to respond yes to items in the revealed condition, compared to items which were not.

No Revelation Effect has been found when the stimuli in the revealed task are different to the stimuli in the test phase, and no effect is found in experiments which involves making judgments on nonsense words or words based on their category typicality