Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation

In mixed lists, stable free recall advantages are observed for encoding conditions that are unusual, bizarre, or attract extensive individual item elaboration relative to more common encoding conditions; but this recall advantage is often eliminated or reversed in pure lists. We attempt to explain this ubiquitous memory puzzle with an item-order account that assumes that (1) free recall of unrelated lists depends on order and item information; (2) unusual items attract greater individual item-processing but disrupt order encoding regardless of list composition; and (3) list composition determines differences in order encoding across unusual and common items. We show that the item-order account provides a unifying explanation of five memory phenomena for which the requisite data exist. The account also successfully anticipates pure-list reversals, in which the standard mixed-list recall pattern is obtained in pure, structured lists, a finding that competing accounts cannot handle. Extending the item-order account to other “established” recall phenomena may prove fruitful.     

The bizarreness effect: dissociation between item and source memory

The present study investigated the relationship between memory for particular items (nouns embedded in sentences) varying in bizarreness and the spatial location in which they were learned. Consistent with earlier findings, the items embedded in bizarre sentences were better recalled than those embedded in common sentences. This mnemonic advantage for bizarre sentences did not extend to memory for source (spatial location), which did not reliably vary as a function of bizarreness. This pattern is inconsistent with several existing theoretical formulations of the relation between item and source encoding and related findings. We propose a theoretical possibility for integrating these varied findings. Finally, the expectation-violation explanation of the bizarreness effect was not supported by the absence of a relation between recall of the items and memory for context.     

What Kind of Christian Are You? Religious Ideologies and Political Attitudes

Through measures of orthodoxy, images of God, and instrumental beliefs, scholars of the social scientific study of religion have been able to demonstrate how abstract and specific religious beliefs influence political and social attitudes. Building upon this work, this article uses a unique data set to measure social and prosperity gospel support. Further, it examines the roots and political behavioral consequences of support to these religious ideologies. The results show that religious tradition, congregational messages, and social demographics all influence doctrinal support. However, these relationships are conditional upon race. The results also show that the social gospel promotes an emphasis on the structural sources of social problems and the importance of rehabilitation, which leads to higher levels of self‐expressed liberalism and democratic identification. Conversely, the prosperity gospel promotes holding individuals accountable for social problems and punishing deviant behavior, which leads to higher levels of self‐expressed conservatism and Republican identification. The data also suggest that race matters, as the relationship between prosperity gospel support and political attitudes is more powerful for blacks than whites.     

Can Basic Individual Differences Shed Light on the Construct Meaning of Assessment Center Evaluations?

The construct meaning of assessment center evaluations is an important unresolved issue in I/O psychology. This study hypothesized that Cognitive Ability and personality traits are primary correlates of evaluators’ overall assessment ratings (OARs). Meta–analysis results based on 65 correlations indicate the following mean construct–level correlations with OARs: .67 for Cognitive Ability, .50 for Extraversion, .35 for Emotional Stability, .25 for Openness, and .17 for Agreeableness; yielding a multiple R of .84. These findings support our hypothesis and cast light on the construct meaning of assessment center evaluations.